RE: Rugged Comparisons

["Gann, Jeff " <jeff_gann@domain.elided>]

     >>an old Bronco), and ruggedness (I drew a blank, I mean, I know
the
     >>Scout is truly a truck, but I do not know enough of the Bronco
...
     >>but I cannot imagine a mass produced vehicle being more rugged
     >>than the Scout).  Anybody know how these compare?  mark
     
     >So, you could say a '70 Bronco with a rear 9" and a front '44 has 
     >stronger running gear than a '70 Scout 800...
     
     I had a '70 Sport(more chrome doo-dads) Bronco with a 44 front and
9" 
     rear, and a pretty hot 302 under the hood.  I went to Waynoka, 
     Oklahoma with friends for a little sand dune dirt biking, and after
a 
     few refreshments in the evening, we all piled into the Bronco for
some 
     moonlight 4 wheeling.  Ended up getting stuck in some really loose 
     sand and blew the spider gears out of both diff's.  Ended up being 
     pulled out by an old IHC pickup that acted like my F*@d was nothing
to 
     pull, even in the deep sand.
       
     >I don't know that anything else is better or weaker.  They did
have 
     >coil spring front suspensions, which some like and some don't
like.  
     
     Mine had a very nice ride
     
     >*shrug*  But why would anyone want an early Bronco?  Haven't we
seen 
     >enough of those... :-)
     
     I don't know, good looks and parts availability might be one of the

     reasons for their popularity.  I got rid of mine, as I've never had
a 
     F*@d that didn't break frequently.  Plus, most of the old Bronco's 
     I've seen will give any IHC a run for their money in the rust 
     department.
     
     - Jeff