Bronco Forum - Full Size Ford Bronco Forum banner

Bronco vs. Blazer

11K views 68 replies 33 participants last post by  89Heaver 
#1 ·
#3 ·
Haha, wow. Yeah, it's easy to see who put that video together.

The Blazer more aerodynamic than a Bronco? It was designed with a cardboard box as inspiration. The Bronco at least has some styling and slanted lines in it (which, not to mention, simply makes it a nicer, more timeless looking vehicle in my opinion).

The comparisons between the six cylinders cracked me up. 16/20 vs. 16/21. Yeah, the 16/20 is almost an entire liter bigger and about 40 - 50 more torque, but I guess you gotta win arguments where you can. And maybe their six cylinder isn't meant for hard work and off-roading... Lol.

I will give them, though, that the OD transmission definitely was not meant for much more than the interstate.


I got a laugh out of how he talked the Bronco down for only being offered in 4WD.


However, is the info about the different GVW true? 1000lbs is a pretty hefty claim.
I was always under the impression Blazer frames and suspensions were lighter and weaker.
And didn't they both have NP-208s? I can definitely shift my Bronco from 2H to 4H while moving.
 
#4 ·
The engine bogged down going up the hill......whoever was driving the Bronco was inexperience is climbing hills. That hill wasn't chit.
 
#6 ·
It also didn't appear to be in 4WD. And maybe the '81 Bronco couldn't do on the move 4WD shift in? Idk I know my '89 can but its a moot point with the hubs...which don't matter to me because if I think I am gonna need 4WD its gonna be engaged long before I do.

But yes they're both modeled after cardboard boxes

Bonus Content!


Sadly the Blazer is rusting to hell...body panels are nice but the underbody is terrible...dunno why my grandpa insists on storing it in his damp as the everglades lower barn but the thing would be better off sitting outside
 
#9 ·
i see your chevy and raise you a dodge.............:beer

 
#13 · (Edited)
1. Any of us trail riders all know the hill never looks as bad in video/pictures as it feels in the drivers seat.
2. Everybody I mean Everybody who takes a 4x4 offroad seriously takes those auto locking hubs and throws them in the trash can where they belong and gets a set of Warns or comparable.
3. What is a 4.1l chevy a V6 or a I6? put it nose to nose with a 4.9 and I guarantee the Bowtie is considered less than capable all around.
4. How many of those ESC engines are still running as designed I bet there are twice as many Durasparks out there running still as built.
 
#15 ·
1. Any of us trail riders all know the hill never looks as bad in video/pictures as it feels in the drivers seat.
Isn't that the truth? I'm on some crazy steep hill where I have my hands on the dashboard, and someone takes a picture, and from the outside it looks like I'm playing in the sandbox.

2. Everybody I mean Everybody who takes a 4x4 offroad seriously takes those auto locking hubs and throws them in the trash can where they belong and gets a set of Warns or comparable.
Not only that, but I was pretty sure that auto locking hubs were standard on an '81. As far as I'm aware, this was a completely false claim by Chevy in the video, since both had autos standard, and turnable hubs optional. But very true, I'm glad whoever owned my Bronco before me put on Warns.

3. What is a 4.1l chevy a V6 or a I6? put it nose to nose with a 4.9 and I guarantee the Bowtie is considered less than capable all around.
This is what wikipedia states under the Blazer. The 4.1 (250ci) is their smaller I6, much like Ford's 240 I6 (exact same engine as the 300 but with a 3.18" stroke instead of 3.98". Discontinued in '77)

'73 - '78
HP: 105 TQ: 185

'79 - '84
HP: 130 TQ: 210

A little more horsepower but WAY less torque. One thing Chevy did right with their straight six is put a 2bbl carb on it from the factory, something the 300 desperately needed Ford to do.

They didn't offer their 292 I6 in the Blazer.

4. How many of those ESC engines are still running as designed I bet there are twice as many Durasparks out there running still as built.
For every 80's Blazer I see on the road, I see 10 Broncos. Easily.
 
#14 ·
#22 ·
Whatcha talkin' bout Willis? I love Chevy's injected 350...I've had two...one being in my Suburban and then its little brother the 4.3L V6 on my old S10 Blazer. I personally like how Chevy handled the throttle body over Ford's contraption.

My Suburban also somehow gets better MPG then the Bronco...but I'm guessing thats mostly due to OD on the Suburban.
 
#19 ·
I had a good chuckle at the video. Funny part was the chevy 305 is garbage and snatched many out to replace with a 350 but that is a no brainer.

One thing they did good with the Blazer was keep a straight axle and later years with fuel injected 350's not to mention a bolt in swap to one ton axles. They had there advantages but still don't change the fact that I like Ford better.:thumbup
 
#30 ·
They are both good vehicles. I agree with Pyro, GM fuel injection is sooooo simple. fords is overly complex
 
#32 ·
Amen. Popped the hood on the Bronco for the first time and I'm pretty sure I said "The f*ck is this?"

Results of always working on Chevys I guess

Is there anyway to make the Bronco's throttle body like Chevys?
 
#33 ·
It wouldn't be worth the hassle.
 
#42 ·
anyone look at dodge's EFI setup on their smallblocks? not TBI, they have an injector for each cylinder.

nothing but ROOM. so EASY to work on.
 
#43 ·
I HATE working on dodge trucks. I wont work on dodge cars. I dont really mind jeeps or chevy trucks. Although, I always swore I would not drive a Dakota even if it was free. Smash cut to one of my customers giving me a 2000 Dakota 4X4 extended cab with 4.7 V8 with 80k on the clock. He didnt need it anymore and didnt want to fix it up to sell it. My "truck" is not going to be done till spring soooooo.....I drive the Dakota when I need a truck. :whiteflag
 
#51 ·
Lets not forget old-school mechanical fuel injection!
Im merely commenting that in the late 80s + 90s, Ford's EFI was way ahead of GMs, which InsanePyro said he prefered because it was 'simpler' looking than Fords, even tho it doesnt work as good. And we all know, when it comes to motors, looks are better than performance :rolleyes:



This is on the Vortec motors. Ask any mechanic what a disaster this setup was, especially the first-gen vortecs. They got it right later, but they were way behind the curve, Ford & Chrysler already had way better systems out there.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top