Ford Bronco-II: Which Version Should You Choose?
Choosing a Ford Bronco-II mainly means deciding between economy, power, transmission type, and drive layout. The model was produced from 1984 to 1990 as an SUV 3-doors in a single generation, with seven listed versions.
Choosing a Ford Bronco-II mainly means deciding between economy, power, transmission type, and drive layout. The model was produced from 1984 to 1990 as an SUV 3-doors in a single generation, with seven listed versions. The 2.4 MT is the economy-focused Diesel and RWD choice, the 2.8 MT and 2.8 AT combine a Gasoline engine with AWD, and the 2.9 MT and 2.9 AT provide the highest output at 140 hp with either AWD or RWD. Because there is only one generation, there is no later generation to compare for mechanical changes.
Ford Bronco-II generations compared
The 1 generation covers 1984–1990 and uses an SUV 3-doors body. Its seven versions comprise 2.4 MT, 2.8 MT, 2.8 AT, two 2.9 MT configurations, and two 2.9 AT configurations. The identically named 2.9 versions must be distinguished by drive: each transmission is available with AWD or RWD. All seven have a front, longitudinal engine, dependent spring front suspension, dependent leaf spring rear suspension, Disc front brakes, and Drum rear brakes.
Ford Bronco-II engine and specs comparison
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.4 MT | 87 hp at 4200 rpm | 182 Nm at 2000 rpm | 2346 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | Manual, 5-speed | RWD |
| 2.8 MT | 115 hp at 4600 rpm | 203 Nm at 2600 rpm | 2792 cc | Gasoline | 6, V-shaped | No | Manual, 4-speed | AWD |
| 2.8 AT | 115 hp at 4600 rpm | 203 Nm at 2600 rpm | 2792 cc | Gasoline | 6, V-shaped | No | Automatic, 3-speed | AWD |
| 2.9 MT | 140 hp at 4600 rpm | 231 Nm at 2600 rpm | 2933 cc | Gasoline | 6, V-shaped | No | Manual, 5-speed | AWD |
| 2.9 AT | 140 hp at 4600 rpm | 231 Nm at 2600 rpm | 2933 cc | Gasoline | 6, V-shaped | No | Automatic, 4-speed | AWD |
| 2.9 MT | 140 hp at 4600 rpm | 231 Nm at 2600 rpm | 2933 cc | Gasoline | 6, V-shaped | No | Manual, 5-speed | RWD |
| 2.9 AT | 140 hp at 4600 rpm | 231 Nm at 2600 rpm | 2933 cc | Gasoline | 6, V-shaped | No | Automatic, 4-speed | RWD |
The 2.4 MT produces about 37.1 hp per litre. The 2.8 MT and 2.8 AT each produce about 41.2 hp per litre, while every 2.9 MT and 2.9 AT reaches about 47.7 hp per litre. Thus, the 2.9 engine provides the highest specific output as well as the highest absolute output.
Moving from a 2.8 version to a 2.9 version adds 25 hp and 28 Nm while displacement rises by 141 cc. The 2.9 engine uses Distributed injection (multi-point), whereas the 2.8 engine uses a Carburetor. The 2.4 MT is the only Diesel, the only Turbo version, and the only version with 4 Inline cylinders.
Ford Bronco-II performance and fuel economy
Acceleration from 0–100 km/h is not measured for any version. Top speed is also not measured for any version.
| Version | Drive | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.4 MT | RWD | 10.2 l/100 km | 8.7 l/100 km | 9.4 l/100 km |
| 2.8 MT | AWD | 11.8 l/100 km | 7.8 l/100 km | 10.2 l/100 km |
| 2.8 AT | AWD | 13.1 l/100 km | 9.8 l/100 km | 11.2 l/100 km |
| 2.9 MT | AWD | 13.8 l/100 km | 10.7 l/100 km | 12.4 l/100 km |
| 2.9 AT | AWD | 14.7 l/100 km | 11.2 l/100 km | 13.1 l/100 km |
| 2.9 MT | RWD | 12.4 l/100 km | 9.8 l/100 km | 11.2 l/100 km |
| 2.9 AT | RWD | 13.1 l/100 km | 10.2 l/100 km | 11.8 l/100 km |
The 2.4 MT has the lowest combined figure at 9.4 l/100 km. The 2.8 MT is 0.8 l/100 km higher in combined use, but its highway figure of 7.8 l/100 km is 0.9 l/100 km lower than that of the 2.4 MT.
Transmission choice creates a clear difference within otherwise matching configurations. The 2.8 AT uses 1.0 l/100 km more than the 2.8 MT in combined driving. Among AWD 2.9 versions, the 2.9 AT uses 0.7 l/100 km more than the 2.9 MT. Among RWD 2.9 versions, the 2.9 AT uses 0.6 l/100 km more than the 2.9 MT.
Drive layout also changes the 2.9 economy figures. The RWD 2.9 MT uses 1.2 l/100 km less in combined driving than the AWD 2.9 MT. The RWD 2.9 AT uses 1.3 l/100 km less than the AWD 2.9 AT. The AWD 2.9 AT has the highest combined consumption at 13.1 l/100 km, which is 3.7 l/100 km above the 2.4 MT.
Ford Bronco-II dimensions, weight, and clearance
| Version | Drive | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.4 MT | RWD | 1450 kg | not measured | 165 mm | not measured | not measured |
| 2.8 MT | AWD | 1400 kg | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.8 AT | AWD | 1400 kg | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.9 MT | AWD | 1490 kg | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.9 AT | AWD | 1490 kg | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.9 MT | RWD | 1436 kg | not measured | 165 mm | not measured | not measured |
| 2.9 AT | RWD | 1436 kg | not measured | 165 mm | not measured | not measured |
The 2.8 MT and 2.8 AT are the lightest at 1400 kg. The AWD 2.9 MT and 2.9 AT are the heaviest at 1490 kg, a difference of 90 kg. Switching from AWD to RWD in either 2.9 transmission configuration reduces kerb weight by 54 kg.
Weight per horsepower further separates the versions. The 2.4 MT carries about 16.7 kg per hp. Each 2.8 version carries about 12.2 kg per hp. The AWD 2.9 MT and 2.9 AT carry about 10.6 kg per hp, while the RWD 2.9 MT and 2.9 AT have the lowest figure at about 10.3 kg per hp. Based strictly on output and kerb weight, the RWD 2.9 versions provide the strongest power-to-weight relationship.
Ground clearance is measured at 165 mm for the 2.4 MT and both RWD 2.9 versions. It is not measured for the 2.8 MT, 2.8 AT, AWD 2.9 MT, or AWD 2.9 AT. Gross weight, fuel-tank capacity, and wheel sizes are not measured for any version.
Which Ford Bronco-II version should you buy?
Choose the 2.4 MT if combined fuel consumption is the priority. Its 9.4 l/100 km result is the lowest, and its 182 Nm arrives at 2000 rpm, earlier than the 203 Nm or 231 Nm delivered at 2600 rpm by the Gasoline versions. The trade-off is the lowest output, at 87 hp, and the highest weight-per-power figure, at about 16.7 kg per hp.
Choose the 2.8 MT if you want AWD with the lowest measured consumption. It records 10.2 l/100 km combined, compared with 11.2 l/100 km for the 2.8 AT. Both provide the same 115 hp, 203 Nm, 2792 cc Gasoline engine, and 1400 kg kerb weight, so the 2.8 AT’s main numerical distinction is its 3-speed Automatic gearbox rather than the 2.8 MT’s 4-speed Manual.
Choose the RWD 2.9 MT for the strongest numerical balance of output, weight, and economy among the 140 hp versions. It combines 140 hp and 231 Nm with a 1436 kg kerb weight and 11.2 l/100 km combined consumption. It is 54 kg lighter and uses 1.2 l/100 km less than the AWD 2.9 MT, while retaining the same 5-speed Manual gearbox and engine output.
Choose the RWD 2.9 AT if an Automatic gearbox is required but AWD is not. It matches the AWD 2.9 AT at 140 hp and 231 Nm, yet weighs 54 kg less and uses 1.3 l/100 km less in combined driving. Its 11.8 l/100 km combined figure is also 0.6 l/100 km above the RWD 2.9 MT.
Choose the AWD 2.9 MT when AWD and maximum output matter more than obtaining the lowest consumption. It has the same 140 hp and 231 Nm as every other 2.9 version, but its 12.4 l/100 km combined figure is 0.7 l/100 km below that of the AWD 2.9 AT. Choose the AWD 2.9 AT only when both AWD and an Automatic gearbox are essential: it retains the highest engine output but also has the highest measured combined consumption, at 13.1 l/100 km.