Identify this Truck?

[Rebeldad1]

its not a bronco and doesnt have square headlights. without looking it up 1975 f series

 

[Jstpssng]

its not a bronco and doesnt have square headlights. without looking it up 1975 f series

No way. The '75 grills were much different, and had a pillar in the center with two gray inserts. Then in '76 the inserts were changed, but still included the center pillar. In '78 they changed the entire grill to the style in the OPs picture. That was also the year they had the option of rectangular or round headlights... I believe that the rectangular was halogen, the round was regular sealed beam. In '79 they were all rectangular; then in '80 Ford came out with an altogether different cab styling.

The truck in question is a '78 Ford... and as others have said it's a Bronco. If it was a pickup, you would see a separate cab and bed.

 

[Jstpssng]

Furthermore, in 1975 they were making the old style Bronco. It wasn't until '78 that they started putting them on a 1/2 ton frame, to compete against the Blazer.

 

[Midniteoyl]

its not a bronco and doesnt have square headlights. without looking it up 1975 f series

Its a 1978 2nd Gen Ford Bronco. Based on the F100 trucks. Made in '78 and '79, the '78s had round headlights, '79 had square.

Here's one pulled from a quick search:

 

[Avenger]

So here's a question, where they any good? I don't play into the Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge game. But was the 1978 Ford Bronco a good rig? I don't think I've ever ridden in one (least not that I can remember).

 

[Jstpssng]

So here's a question, where they any good? I don't play into the Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge game. But was the 1978 Ford Bronco a good rig? I don't think I've ever ridden in one (least not that I can remember).

It was as good as a Blazer or a Ram Charger. (Chrysler's version at the time)

If you wanted something to drive around and show off to your friends they were all good rigs. It was, however, when off road vehicles started turning into behemoths more suited for going to the mall than off into the bushes.

 

[Hay Dude]

So here's a question, where they any good? I don't play into the Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge game. But was the 1978 Ford Bronco a good rig? I don't think I've ever ridden in one (least not that I can remember).

Depends on your definition of “good”
Fuel mileage-no
Power-probably not (unless big block or modified)
Rust-no
Comfortable on long trips- not so much
Easy to fix-yes
Tough off road-yes
Roomy-yes
Inexpensive to maintain-yes

I had one back in the day. It was bad-ass, but kind of crude compared to todays trucks.

 

[Raul-02]

I know its a ford, says so right on the hood!

the hood says FO D. I never heard of that make.

 

[LS Tractor Owner]

the hood says FO D. I never heard of that make.

You do know what that stands for...... can't say it on here though....

 

[ROUSTABOUT]

78 Bronco. I looked closer. I have two old ones here for parts to keep my trucks going. One has motor and all but is wrecked. I was behind the girl when it happened. It was her mother's. Had 77k miles on it 400, 4 speed, posi rear. Only drove in town, never been in 4x4. I'm gonna make a tractor out of that one. Other one is all there but the engine. But it does have the trailer USA package.

Just the good 4x4 power steering boxes are worth it.

 

[Jstpssng]

^^^^
That 400 was a good engine.

 

[Raul-02]

You do know what that stands for..

no clue

 

[Alan W.]

Like others said its a 78 Bronco Custom.
In 78 the Custom trim level had round headlights. All trim levels in 79 went to the rectangular.

 

[Oaktree]

Depends on your definition of “good”
Fuel mileage-no
Power-probably not (unless big block or modified)
Rust-no
Comfortable on long trips- not so much
Easy to fix-yes
Tough off road-yes
Roomy-yes
Inexpensive to maintain-yes

I had one back in the day. It was bad-ass, but kind of crude compared to todays trucks.

Not a Bronco, but I did have a '79 F-100 with a 302/3 in the tree. Gas mileage wasn't great, but not all that much different than other trucks of that era...15-17. Not much power, but it was geared quite high for some reason, most likely to get around EPA mileage requirements. Other than some bed rust it wasn't bad, certainly not as bad as a Dodge of that era or a Japanese truck (of any era). I found it comfortable on a long trip, I had a cap for mine and took several road trips in it, camping in the back. Between being 2WD and rather high geared, it wasn't something you took off road.
Kind of a weak heater.

 

[MossRoad]

You know, that didn't click until you pointed it out. I was thinking, "that truck is blue, and how is it a 6x6? Maybe he knows something I dont?!"

Its been a long day. lol

 

[alexpops]

Polite versions ==> Found On Road Dead/Fix Or Repair Daily ... OR more commonly ==> F_____ Over Road Dog

Can't say what Pontiac Stood for anymore

 

[stuckmotor]

In the 1980s someone told me that the two of the digits molded on the cover of a vehicle's tail lights were it's date of manufacture. On American cars of that era, I could usually find a couple of digits that I thought matched. Don't know if I ever checked it against the date on the registration.
Does anyone know whether the match was by design or coincidence?

 

[Jstpssng]

Kind of a weak heater.

It's starting to come back to me. You had to pay extra for a "High output heater."

In 78 the Custom trim level had round headlights. All trim levels in 79 went to the rectangular.

That makes sense. My father ordered a '78 F150, which in itself was a step above the F100. He wasn't one to pay for frills but wanted carpet as he was tired of water getting trapped under the rubber mat and not escaping. Other options he was looking for were limited slip and rear sliding window, and he bought the 302 4-speed.

I never felt that the 302 was much of an engine. I had a couple of 300 I-6 pickups which had as much if not more power. Either engine could give around 18 mpg though, with the 4 speed creeper transmission. They also seemed to be pretty tough; it was easy to get 100K + at a time when many engines were toast before then.

 

[stuckmotor]

It's starting to come back to me. You had to pay extra for a "High output heater."


That makes sense. My father ordered a '78 F150, which in itself was a step above the F100. He wasn't one to pay for frills but wanted carpet as he was tired of water getting trapped under the rubber mat and not escaping. Other options he was looking for were limited slip and rear sliding window, and he bought the 302 4-speed.

I never felt that the 302 was much of an engine. I had a couple of 300 I-6 pickups which had as much if not more power. Either engine could give around 18 mpg though, with the 4 speed creeper transmission. They also seemed to be pretty tough; it was easy to get 100K + at a time when many engines were toast before then.

I never knew about a high output heater. They probably weren't needed this far south.

 

[MossRoad]

Here’s some interesting comparisons of the V8-302 and L6-300.

The 302 always made more HP and more torque than the 300.
However, the L6 made it’s peak torque at a lower RPM, hence it felt like it pulled sooner, because it did pull sooner. That’s why it felt better for launching a loaded pickup.