An article in USA Today discusses six likely or possible new vehicles that use nostalgic names.
Ford Bronco. They already announced that a new Bronco is on the way. Think Ranger with a cap. No, really. It’s going to be built on the same assembly line as the Ranger near Detroit.
Chevy Blazer. This model is expected to be a midsize CUV between the Equinox and the Traverse.
Jeep Wagoneer. This will be a body on frame SUV that is more luxurious than the Grand Cherokee.
Grand Wagoneer. An even grander version of the Wagoneer. If you like body on frame SUVs and have too much money in your pocket, these two could be worth a look.
BMW 8 series. They showed a concept recently, and the big coupe is expected to be available in the next few years. An M8 is supposed to be in the offing as well. That should be a formidable ride.
Buick Riviera. This will surely be on @bing’s Christmas list. No, it doesn’t look at all like the Gen1 or Gen2 Rivieras, but if it is built, it should be an interesting car. There was a concept Riviera shown at the Beijing Auto Show (where else for a Buick?), but it has not been actually announced yet.
Everything but the Riv look like sure or at least good bets. Look for the first four in the next year or three if you are interested. My personal favorite is the BMW, but I’m not spending $80,000 or more on one when they become available.
I would probably buy a new Bronco if it was going to be based on the F-250/350. If Ford had done a 2 door Excursion, I would’ve bought one. Solid axles front and rear, beefy frame, and at least IMHO good looks. I would even settle for a Bronco based on the current F-150. From what I’ve seen, the new Bronco will try to compete with the Wrangler, which is what I guess the original Bronco did. My 1995 Bronco is the vehicle that I regret getting rid of the most. It was well built, reliable, very roomy, and the best front seats of any car I’ve owned) and surprising maneuverable for it’s size, I’ll wait for the new one to come out before passing judgement, I doubt they’ll put the coyote V8 in it, but the 2.7L Ecoboost should find a home there and that would offer a good combination of power and fuel economy (My 95 got around 9-14 MPG, so something around 14-20 MPG should be doable today).
You could get another 1995 or so Bronco and bring it up to your specs. I’ve never been enthusiastic about midsize pickups like the Ranger. Especially now, I wonder why someone would buy a new Ranger or any equivalent truck instead of an F150 or equivalent. Sure, the cost is less for the Ranger, but the value of the F150 justifies the added cost IMO.
The thing about that is that finding a 1992-1996 Bronco in good condition is getting difficult, and when you find a cream puff Bronco, the prices are astronomical. There was one for sale not too far from where I live, with only 38k miles on it. It was a 1995, garage kept, no rust, not (even on the tailgate), 351W, new tires,etc. belonged to an older gentleman, who had to give up the keys, his family told him he couldn’t drive anymore, so he was selling his extra cars, he was keeping his Crown Vic though, because he wanted to keep a car that his family could shuttle him around in, and he found that getting in and out of the Crown Vic was easier than the Bronco. The thing is, he knew what he had, and priced it accordingly. He was asking $18,5k for the Bronco. I went and looked at it, it was immaculate inside and out, the drivers seat (leather) had very slight wear, the other seats looked like they had never been sat in, the vehicle looked like it had just been detailed. I checked the usual spots for rust (bottom of the tailgate on the inside, and inside the rear wheel wells, and there was none. I asked if he could start it up, he handed me the keys and said to start it. It ran flawlessly. I noticed a shoebox in the back seat, and inquired about them, he said those were receipts for maintenance, and that he had always taken it to the dealership and had the oil changed twice a year even though he only put a few thousand miles on it a year. I couldn’t bring myself to pay that kind of money for it though. I asked if $12,5k would buy it, (which I felt was a fair offer given the excellent condition). The older guy just grinned and said that while that wasn’t the lowest offer he’d gotten, it wasn’t the highest either. I complimented him on the condition of Bronco, and said my offer stands in case the other ones fell threw. He thanked me for coming out, and I left. The next time ( about a week and half later) I passed by the house, the Bronco was gone. I’m curious what he finally sold it and/or if he got was he was asking for it.
I’m sure you will keep looking if you want one. Maybe you can find one that needs some TLC and get the price you want. While I’m not an officiano, I understand that Broncos of that era are sought after. As I think you’ve said before, ya gotta pay to play. Good luck finding one if you really want it.
That’s very true. While I’d love to have another Bronco, it’s definitely a want, not a need by any means. I still have my 97 F-150 (that I bought to replace my old Bronco), as I wanted something with 4WD and something that could tow. It would be sort of poetic though, if I ended up getting rid of the F-150 and replacing it with an even older Bronco. With that said the TR6 is the next priority. It needs some attention, definitely needs to be repainted. And the carbs are going to need a rebuild in the near future as ethanol has eaten away some of the seals and the carbs are leaking air noticeably now.
its marketing. old folks remember the names and buy or look on impulse. the new dodge dart? i talked to coworker the other day and said i was having a strange event like the twilight zone. he said like the vampire movie? he is young. never heard of the twilight zone. i spent about 1-2 minutes explaining the TZ premise and gave up.
Using the Dart name didn’t help FCA enough to keep the car in production. A nostalgic name can get the buying public’s attention, but the vehicle has to be worthy of the $20,000+ purchase price for continued sales.
It’s a 1974, no catalytic converter, it was made to run on leaded fuel. I used to use lead substitute, but the EPA did away with the “good” lead substitutes a while back. I’m sure the valve seats are worn down by now. The issue with the carbs is that you have to use the choke to get more that 3000 RPM out of the engine. If the choke is closed, it idles fine and runs fine up to around 3000 RPM, then it just falls flat on it’s face. If you open the choke, it runs better ( as well as it usually did), and it will run up to 4500-5000 RPM without a problem, but when you come to a stop, you’re idling at 2000 RPM.
It’s sort of like a small Cessna in a way, you have the throttle and you have a mixture control, and you’re adjusting both for optimum running, sometimes at the same time.