HELP ME DECIDE!!! Newbie needs advice

[Arclight]

Hove102,

My Bronco had an NP-435 transmission, which is a 4-speed manual that has a non-synchro 1st gear with a 6.67:1 ratio. It was great. I'm not sure if the newer years have anything like this, but I thought the "granny gear" first was a very useful feature offroad.

The 90s (think OJ) Broncos have quite a bit more insulation and such for comfort. The 78-79 is more like a big tractor. Most people say to avoid the Bronco II - it's a completely different platform, along the lines of the "Mustang II" that was really a Pinto.

Arclight

 

[hove102]

Damn, that is a loooow first gear, you weren't kidding. I think the "OJ" Broncos had a 5-speed manual, but the 5th gear was an overdrive. I think if I were to seriously consider a bronco, I'd probably look at the ones toward the end of the production run since those would have the lowest miles and be in the best shape. I'm just basing that off of what I've seen on CL.

 

[4x4junkie]

Hove102,

My Bronco had an NP-435 transmission, which is a 4-speed manual that has a non-synchro 1st gear with a 6.67:1 ratio. It was great. I'm not sure if the newer years have anything like this, but I thought the "granny gear" first was a very useful feature offroad.

The 90s (think OJ) Broncos have quite a bit more insulation and such for comfort. The 78-79 is more like a big tractor. Most people say to avoid the Bronco II - it's a completely different platform, along the lines of the "Mustang II" that was really a Pinto.

Arclight

Would that mean you're retracting the Ranger pickup suggestion you had previously posted? Because that's what a Bronco II is...
The Ranger was infact a very viable platform for a small offroadable SUV unlike the short-lived Pinto platform was for a muscle car (which many still embraced for it's rack & pinion steering and suspension at the time).

If a BII fits the OP's needs, there's little reason with any merit to avoid it. It's far more practical and easy to live with than say, a Jeep Wrangler YJ or TJ. Like any vehicle, there are a couple known problem areas, but can easily be eliminated with later (improved) parts from later ('90s) model Rangers that just bolt right in (the front axle and transmission are probably the most popular swaps). The BII's biggest downfall is it's non-removable top, but there are ways that can be fixed too if desired.

There's a huge community and resources on the web for these trucks and the Ranger they're based from (the Explorer too, which you could consider an updated BII already having the good parts underneath it). Only thing essential they need is an auxiliary trans cooler, since the automatic tends to run a bit hot.

I've thought about Broncos, but the one thing that holds me back is fuel mileage...judging by your name, I'm assuming you have a Bronco; what kind of mileage do you get? And is the TTB suspension as hard to keep aligned as everyone says? My uncle has a Bronco with the TTB, and that thing eats front tires because of the suspension. (However, I suspect that has more to do with the lack of care the owner gives his vehicle.)

I find a lot of misunderstanding out there about these suspensions. However they are every bit as dependable as the Dana solid axle they are based from if they are built right (means not bolting on a cheezy lift kit with a too-short drop pitman arm and flimsy brackets that bend and won't hold the alignment), or simply leaving it stock (but maintaining it properly, such as replacing ball joints etc. should it need it).

I wrote an article for the Ranger/Explorer guys some years ago to debunk some of the rumors circulated about TTB suspensions. Keeping one aligned isn't exactly rocket science. Much of it centers on the steering linkage angle being correct if you put a suspension lift on it. For the most part it all applies the same to the F-150 & Bronco TTB as well.
http://www.therangerstation.com/Magazine/winter2008/steering_tech.htm

More stuff here:
http://www.therangerstation.com/tech_library/index.shtml

Hope that helps.

IMO, I think the Explorer is an exceptionally hard vehicle to beat for value, durability and practicality. Left stock and with a manual transmission, it's easily possible to see MPG in the low-mid 20s on the freeway on ones with the OHV 4.0L V6 if you put the proper air pressure in the tires (not what the door label says, but 35 PSI).

 

[hove102]

Thanks for the info, 4x4junkie! That was a lot of good info, some of it which I hadn't thought of before. I think the Bronco II's actually look cool with a lift and bigger tires, but like a lot of cool things, they seem a bit hard to come by, at least in decent shape. That being said, I haven't really looked hard at them so that might be why. The same goes for an Explorer with the manual trans. I know they came with one, but I've never seen one in the flesh!

I'm only a couple days from going back to the States (not looking forward to the flight), so my search for a rig will really start to ramp up. As of right now, the strongest contenders are Gen 2 Monteros, Gen 2 Troopers, and Jeep ZJs (of which there are plenty right now). Driving impressions mean a lot to me so I'll have to test drive a good example of each and see which one I can live with day to day. Out of the 3, I'd love to find a good Montero but the field is thin. I'll definitely be posting updates as the search continues and letting everyone out there know what I come across.

 

[4x4junkie]

You'll find a manual trans most often in 1st-gen ('91-'94) Explorers, majority of which were 2-door Sport models, but there's some number of 4-doors with them too. Finding manuals gets progressively harder the later you go ('00 appears to be the last year a manual was offered at all in the 4-door, the Sport still got them up through '03 I believe).

I wouldn't completely rule out the automatic though, just try to find one with fairly low miles that hasn't been abused, and then put an external aux cooler on it's return line (a must, really... they are known to be problematic without it since the factory in-radiator cooler (shared with the hot engine coolant) is about worthless).

Anyway, always glad to help. The Trooper and Montero always seemed like good sturdy choices to me as well (maybe with a little less aftermarket support though), the ZJ however, all the ones I've seen have been gas-guzzlers (pretty much like anything Chrysler from around that time). Let us know what you find.

 

[hove102]

...the ZJ however, all the ones I've seen have been gas-guzzlers (pretty much like anything Chrysler from around that time)...

Funny that you say this...the Jeep guys would have me believe that ZJs get great mileage and most other rigs don't! I guess that shows the effects of brand bias...

Then again, I might become one of them depending on how this search turns out!

 

[Arclight]

Would that mean you're retracting the Ranger pickup suggestion you had previously posted? Because that's what a Bronco II is...
The Ranger was infact a very viable platform for a small offroadable SUV unlike the short-lived Pinto platform was for a muscle car (which many still embraced for it's rack & pinion steering and suspension at the time).

Thanks for the correction - I had heard that the Bronco II was based on a completely different chassis. I agree that the Ranger is a great small 4x4 platform, and so should the Bronco II if SUV format is needed. Most of my Bronco knowledge is from the "Big Bronco" enthusiast side, and they sort of leave out the Bronco II in their history timeline.


Arclight

 

[4x4junkie]

Funny that you say this...the Jeep guys would have me believe that ZJs get great mileage and most other rigs don't! I guess that shows the effects of brand bias...

Then again, I might become one of them depending on how this search turns out!

No brand bias here... I see it plainly when with friends on wheeling trips.

On the remote Dusy/Ershim trail some years back, I was the one who's tank we ended up siphoning gas out of when Jeep guys started running out of gas even after depleting their jerry cans. Made for an interesting trip for sure (many of them had never run the Dusy before, and were unaware how much fuel is required for the trip).

(the Chrysler comment comes partly from another buddy who had a Dakota pickup (stock)... no matter what he did he got 12 MPG. Though it had a V8, that's still worse than the 14 or so a F-150, Expedition or a Tahoe gets).

I have the smaller 2.9L V6 in my BII, an Explorer will have a 4.0L, however I also have a Ranger pickup with the same 4.0L, and it usually averages about 1 MPG less than my BII, so not a huge difference between them (Ranger is also lifted, 33" tires). The 4.0L has gobs more effortless torque though, so I'll likely swap my 2.9L out for one if it ever starts having problems.

Thanks for the correction - I had heard that the Bronco II was based on a completely different chassis. I agree that the Ranger is a great small 4x4 platform, and so should the Bronco II if SUV format is needed. Most of my Bronco knowledge is from the "Big Bronco" enthusiast side, and they sort of leave out the Bronco II in their history timeline.


Arclight

Yeah, no hard feelings or anything... It seems there's always some number of folks around who think it's not a "real" Bronco or something (throw in the "early Bronco snobs" as well). I've dealt with people like that on a semi-regular basis. When I get to all the same places they do, they usually will shut up.

 

[hove102]

4x4junkie, that's actually a really interesting observation...I'll have to keep an eye out for that when I'm looking at trucks. There are a few Grand Cherokees that I'm looking at so I'll keep that in the back of my mind. I mean, I'd really like to get up into the high teens, mileage-wise, but I know that with anything with 4WD, that's a bit of a pipe dream in most cases.

 

[Arclight]

4x4junkie, that's actually a really interesting observation...I'll have to keep an eye out for that when I'm looking at trucks. There are a few Grand Cherokees that I'm looking at so I'll keep that in the back of my mind. I mean, I'd really like to get up into the high teens, mileage-wise, but I know that with anything with 4WD, that's a bit of a pipe dream in most cases.

All things being equal, I tend to notice that big tires and added weight hurts the mileage on small engines more than large. So if you definitely want 35in+ tires and full armour, you might want to hold out for the big 6 or 8 cylinder in the model you're looking at.

Arclight

 

[4x4junkie]

All things being equal, I tend to notice that big tires and added weight hurts the mileage on small engines more than large. So if you definitely want 35in+ tires and full armour, you might want to hold out for the big 6 or 8 cylinder in the model you're looking at.

Arclight

I think that's more rooted in what gear ratio you run in your axles (no doubt, smaller, faster-revving engines are more affected by the RPM decrease from bigger tires than big engines are). If you can compensate fully for that by regearing the axles, your mileage shouldn't change by much.

Some axles do have low limits to how deep of a ratio you can put in them though, so depending on the rig, the chance you might run up against such a limit becomes greater with big tires and a small engine.

 

[BigSwede]

I think that's more rooted in what gear ratio you run in your axles (no doubt, smaller, faster-revving engines are more affected by the RPM decrease from bigger tires than big engines are). If you can compensate fully for that by regearing the axles, your mileage shouldn't change by much.

I think this is true. My Trooper has a 4" lift and 35" tires (not to mention the weight of various body armor), and was regeared to a near stock drive ratio. It still gets 15-16 mpg at 75 mph (unless there is a headwind). Not bad considering it was only rated for 17 highway brand new and stock.

 

[hove102]

As much as I want to have an ExPo rig that runs 35s and has full armor and all the gear anyone would ever need, the truth is that I don't really want (or need) all that stuff right away, which I'm sure most of you would agree with. I think the goal for me for the foreseeable future is to get a good, sturdy platform that I can slap some 31s on and go most places without too much labor on my part. Then, later on, once I know what needs improving or what could be made better with mods, I'll add them on SLOWLY (haha!). I'm trying to keep a level head about it instead of diving in headfirst, as I've done with previous hobbies. This thing has to be my DD too, so I can't go too crazy, and I have to work with my budget.

Plus, while I'm still in college, I have to work around the low clearances that my school's parking structure has. Lame reason, I know, but it's the truth.

An update on the search: I've got one, possibly two rigs to look at this weekend to get a baseline on what I'm looking for. One is a '94 Montero LS, with the 3.0 and virtually nothing done to it. I've heard guys like the 3.0, so that's why I'm really considering this one. It'll need tires ASAP, and the window tint is shot, but it's in pretty solid shape for its age and the mileage isn't too bad at 180K or so. This guy is also the second owner out of two, which I like. The other rig is a '97 Jeep ZJ, 5.2, Quadra-Trac, Limited (possibly Orvis :drool, with 196K. The mileage is a bit high, but it's got a new trans in it, which I know is the ZJ's biggest weak link. It looks really clean in the photos, and the price is definitely right for what it is. I know the AWD t-case isn't ideal, but I do want to drive a V8 and see if they're even worth it to consider. I've read up on the t-case swap to an NP231 or 242, and I'm keeping that in the back of my mind as an option if I really want the 5.2. No Trooper-sellers have responded to my emails yet , but I'm keeping my eyes open for them. There's also a really nice '99 Montero that I might have to ring a guy about. Wish me luck! (and offer any advice if you have it)

1994 Montero: http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/cto/4767837144.html
1997 Jeep: http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/cto/4723593980.html

 

[hove102]

Strikes one and two for the Montero and the ZJ. The Montero's trans was on its last legs (wouldn't go into 3rd gear without significant prodding), and the engine sounded like its bearings were pretty toast. I liked the driving position though, and the interior is HUUUUGE. Big selling points for me, but not enough to waste my time with that specific one. The Jeep's VC was shot, no surprise there, the interior was pretty worn out, and the rear end was making some bad noises. The seller was the original owner which was nice, but the fact that the VC was toast and the mileage was high meant that there was no way I was going for the Jeep. I thanked both owners politely for their time, and walked away. Sigh...the search continues.

EDIT: I looked at a third ZJ today; this one was a '94 with 217K, but lots of recent service done to it AND (the cherry on top) it was a V8 with an NP231 t-case swapped into it. I drove an hour to see it, only to be let down once again. This thing was TIRED. The steering was loose, it pulled to the right, and the motor felt a bit lazy, among other things. This one almost had me sold though, because it was all there, but my dad was my voice of reason and told me I could probably find something better. The owner was a really nice guy and very into 4-wheeling, so I felt bad not buying it from him. However, my dad is right. I can do better. I'm making calls on a '99 Montero, as well as a '98 ZJ and a '95 ZJ (both are I6s). Fingers crossed I have better luck tomorrow. There might still be hope for me getting behind the wheel of a Monty, even though they are a bit on the large side.

 

[hove102]

http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/135330-Emmet-my-03-Monty-Sport?p=1718328#post1718328

Here are the fruits of my labor! So glad to finally have a rig and not have to search anymore.