Talk:Ford Bronco

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)

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: [1][2]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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• 2021 Bronco - May 2021 MAP Build #1
• Archived link
• Photo of MY2021 Bronco MAP May 2021 Production Unit #1 Build Date
• 2021 Bronco - May 2021 MAP Build
• Photo of MY2021 Bronco MAP May 2021 Prod Unit #2 Build Date
• 2021 Bronco - May 2021 MAP Production Unit #3
• Photo of MY2021 Bronco MAP May 2021 Prod Unit #3 Build Date Plate
• Archived Link

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.

• Bronco MAP June 2021 Prod. Build
• 2021 Bronco MAP June 2021 Prod. Build Plate
• MY2021 Bronco MAP June 2021 Prod Build #2
• MY2021 Bronco MAP June 2021 Prod Build Plate
• MY2021 Bronco MAP June 2021 Prod. Build #3
• June 2021 Bronco Build Plate #3
• MY2021 Bronco MAP July 2021 Prod. Build
• July 2021 Bronco Build Plate
• MY2021 Bronco MAP August 2021 Prod. Build
• MY2021 Bronco August 2021 Build Plate
• MY2021 Bronco MAP August 2021 Prod. Build #2
• Bronco MAP 8/21 Build Plate #2
• MY2021 Bronco MAP August 2021 Prod. Build #3
• Bronco MAP 8/21 Build Plate #3

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[[3]][[4]].

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)