Talk:Ford Bronco

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Roof problems

Maybe there should be a section for roof leaks found 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

1972 production notes code named "Project Short Horn" while designing the next Bronco (released 1978-79). Article discusses the roof leaks that plagued other automotive manufacturers, Ford designer Dick Nesbitt and team choose to improve upon with a "Targa" style roof bar design to prevent leaks from a removable hard top on body design. https://www.projectbronco.com/History/78_79_History/history_of_Bronco.htm

1980-96 roof leaks at the B-pillar where the "Targa" designed hardtop mounted, were acknowledged by Ford with TSB repair during the warranty period. https://manualzz.com/doc/6331325/bronco-roof-crack-repair

Here is a detailed article on the 1984-90 Bronco II roof 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) 13:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SOP/JOB 1 Date for U725

I am posting this by my phone, but I will be logging in by PC very soon to finish this up. The U725 Bronco, did not enter production on Monday, June 14, 2021. What is happening here with celebratory June reports that it did, was a carefully curated internal marketing campaign, designed to closely align with the 25th anniversary of EOP date for the previous 1996 Bronco, which ended production on June 12, 1996.

Plus, the fact some hiccups in May 2021 interrupted 2021 Bronco production start midway and the associated fanfare was hampered when MAP production was shutdown for some weeks. I have seen 12-20 examples of Broncos built with May 2021 dates and they are all PRODUCTION units! June is a clever myth and the few links I am going to provide, will prove this.

I have seen many more in person too (obviously) and can easily poke holes in that claim. How else in mid-June, were people getting units just 1 week later up here in Michigan? Typically there's a lag between Job 1 and customer delivery. I can bet some of those were May 2021 builds. Right now the links are on other devices/machines, so give me time. Carmaker1 (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have a certain contempt for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but try reading WP:Verifiability. Your claims of insider knowledge mean nothing here. Until you have a reliable source, the existing one stays. Remove it again and you're headed for another trip to AN/I. --Sable232 (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a nasty response. And I will, because I don't really care much about what you think, if you prefer to be an uncooperative and antagonistic person, as that's not how this works. I am tired of you frankly, as this is an editing environment for everyone willing to contribute and last time I checked, you don't own this site nor any of the content on this page. Get your own website, if deleting article corrections of others at will is what gets you off. Not to mention, I actually do know the subject matter as well and of course, maybe even more for good reasons. You might be a Ford fanatic of some sort and obsess over editing and monitoring these pages 24/7 as a hobby, day-in, day out. But you equally do not get to contribute and aid/support BS information, that can be easily contradicted by actual evidence out in the field. Especially ironically info I introduced previously, by mistake. It's a against policy to attempt to gatekeep an article, with no real intention to work with others. I am not going to provide my firsthand knowledge as sole proof, but as promised, provide a few listed examples:

There were many more I had saved, but have now been sold unfortunately and links now dead, as I have been too busy to archive them. These are all production units, where on the door jams it states clearly that they were assembled at our Michigan Auto Plant in May 2021. NOT June 2021, July 2021, August 2021, NOR September 2021, like many other recent units have been below.

Clearly no single difference between any of them, as they are ALL PRODUCTION vehicles, which can be SOLD to CUSTOMERS. Industry databases, also point to production being underway since May 2021 as well. The link is highly privileged information in fact and shouldn't even be public, in providing intel on future products. This all needs to be discussed amongst various users, before any production date start can be agreed on between all of us. For the prose and infobox, I have to embarrassingly admit fault and remove what I contributed here in June 2021[[1]][[2]].

Learn how not to make things personal, as when you do that, I will respond in kind. Remember that, next time you campaign for retaining poorly sourced articles, with 0 verification, simply because of who is in support of the rightful removal of them, based on them ironically being unsourced and toxic to the knowledge base of the public. I am not done with that and I will get right back to work on fixing that lacking credibility, as clearly some of you have not learned and instead take advantage of other neutral parties' blindspots, to possibly resort to petty politics and ironically support unsourced text that does not help the credibility of this site. If picking petty fights is what passes for editing, find something more productive to do with your time, if all you want to do is edit solely on your terms, revert and edit war, and oppose my contributions and harangue others you don't like for kicks.

We can either discuss this reasonably and review what is presented above or the June 2021 date provided will be ultimately removed, since I ADDED IT myself. It can also read just "2021 - present", as last time I checked, May 2021 precedes June 2021. I don't like dealing with liars, as verifiability doesn't mean quoting borderline tabloid coverage that finds itself to be questionable and agenda-driven (marketing vs me). Maybe you should learn what credible and verifiable means in unison, as WP: Wikilawyering without understanding the context of those terms, doesn't excuse using them as a copout to revert others correcting their OWN mistaken contributions.
You can threaten me and anyone else all you want, but I stand strong on the dates being misleading and inaccurate. Just says a lot more about you, as I will take you to task for edit warring and WP:HARASSMENT, if we cannot resolve this in a rational manner. There's an unwelcome stalking pattern and I will bring it to attention, if need be.--Carmaker1 (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't have an opinion on the conduct issues being addressed at the current AN/I section (permalink), but it seems clear to me from the links provided that production started in May. The issue of whether these are WP:RS is, sure, important if we're talking about putting them in the article. But we're not, and the idea that we simply can't look at obvious evidence (like photos) demonstrating the truth of a claim is strange. If someone were, say, to add a sentence to Bulldozer saying that there are no bulldozers in California, I think it would be quite reasonable for me to disagree and link to a photo of a bulldozer I took in California two days ago, regardless of what source they cite for said claim. jp×g 07:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG Per Wikipedia policy, the example you give of "a photo of a bulldozer [you] took in California two days ago" would be WP:OR, and not a valid counterpoint to a WP:RS-supported statement that there are no bulldozers in California. A photo of a bulldozer on an LA construction site that was published in the LA Times, though, WOULD qualify. It's about WP:VERIFY. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what I'm saying is that being a "reliable source" does not mean "this is certified to be divinely infallible", we're not the medieval Church; every reputable newspaper has an errata section where they correct typos and incorrect claims from previous articles. I mean, even the medieval Church would admit and rectify obvious errors, as in the case of a 1631 edition of the Bible in which a printing malfunction caused Exodus 20:14 to say "thou shalt commit adultery". Nobody said "well, maybe we should commit adultery, it says right here in a known reliable source". This would have been silly, even for 1631. jp×g 21:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ford Bronco

What was the first ever bronco and the latest bronco 2601:185:180:F70:B056:19C1:F357:E03D (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Centurion Classic 1987-1996

Can be found under 'Fifth generation (1992)'

Question:

It is possible to exclude it, to make it an own article itself?

Sorry, English not First Language! 2003:D1:7F32:5236:40F0:4959:C03E:31CE (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is not enough content on the Centurion Classic to support a separate article. --Sable232 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split and division 6th generation

The 6th generation of Bronco it is a new model that is completely new and technically has nothing in common with the others and was produced more than twenty years after the last generation. Therefore it must be moved to a specific ancillary item as done for other Fords such as Ford Focus, Ford Mustang, Ford Fiesta, Ford Mondeo.... If there are no objections I will do it later. 37.159.126.121 (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nothing "must" be done with it. Whether the sixth generation section is split is dependent on two things only: the length of this page (getting up there, but not too long yet) and the amount of content in the sixth-generation to split out (not enough to justify a standalone article).

Vehicles are completely redesigned and have nothing in common with the preceding model all the time - that does not require Wikipedia to have separate articles on them. --Sable232 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Power mirrors

The article currently cites a source that '92 was the first year for power mirrors. But this Ford diagram shows that they were available in the mid-80s, and I have an original Ford wiring harness built with this wiring. The link on this page shows them in detail. So even though I have no other documentation right now, this is something that should be adjusted. https://www.supermotors.net/registry/media/895332 Steve8394 (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truth takes a backseat to WP:VERIFIABILITY in Wikipedia. For something this straight-forward, though, a brochure scan or something would suffice. Or place a {{cn}} tag next to the offending content and then delete it in a few months. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]