1986 mercury/bronco bus

[bronson]

So I stumbled onto this while on Facebook marketplace. Messaged the guy to ask a few questions. She's an ugly duckling. Part 1986 mercury car part bronco in the rear. Asked if it was well built or a hack job. Guy said it was well built. Says it drives well. I asked if it was under powered, he said no. Interior not finished. I have no desire to have this but may go look at it for the hell of it.

[Dave5Cs]

Its back is off 2, Bronco II's those were the ones that the tops didn't come off of.

[CrabbyMilton]

I hate to be the bittybott old teacher here but the front portion isn't a 1986. That style of the CROWN VICTORIA/GRAND MARQUIS came out in the early '90's and ran pretty much unchanged until about 2010.
I know because I have an '04.
Interesting regardless.

[bronson]

No idea what year just repeating what ad said. So that brings up a title issue then and the fact that he doesnt know what year vehicle he is trying to sell. I thought it kind of looked neat in the rear at least. Looks sorta like a neoplan.

[bobofthenorth]

That style of the CROWN VICTORIA/GRAND MARQUIS came out in the early '90's and ran pretty much unchanged until about 2010.

1992 model year to be precise which in those days meant that the body started to appear in summer 1991.

That sumbeech is uuuuugggggleeeee - I don't care what model year of car was butchered to build it.

[Oonrahnjay]

1992 model year to be precise which in those days meant that the body started to appear in summer 1991.

That sumbeech is uuuuugggggleeeee - I don't care what model year of car was butchered to build it. 

    Yeah, "uuuuugggggleeeee" and "rustbucket" are the two first words that spring into my mind.  It's "interesting" and "different", as Garrison Keillor would say (two "damning with faint praise" words).

[Jim Eh.]

Around here, that 2nd axle would have to come off ... unless it is certified complete with an engineer's stamp. We had a customer that decided to replace the rear axle on a 1 ton truck with a more common dual wheel (from the same yr, mk model). They had it done at a different dealer. Being associated with the railroad (back then known as Telecommunications Department), you would have thought they would have known better. Not only did highways (department overseeing vehicles at the time) not recognize the additional weight hauling capacity, they were required to return it to it's manufactured state or come up with about 4K to get an engineers stamp of approval. They sold the truck out of province by auction.
that being said, as Fugly as it is, someone may like it ...

[Geoff]

I got a better one for you:

https://prescott.craigslist.org/cto/d/1983-fiat-rv-4-cylinder-diesel/6772171259.html

Notice the intake hose removed and what looks like a can of ether?

What the H..., $15,000 and interior is apart, and it doesn't look like it has enough power to climb a slanted driveway.  And they call us "Busnuts?

But it is a collectors item.

[DoubleEagle]

The Fiat ad must have a typo, it should be $1500, not $15000. 

[Dave5Cs]

$150.00 more like.

[Oonrahnjay]

$150.00 more like.

       That's $15.00 more than I'd pay (if it had new tires and a full tank of fuel).

[bronson]

I agree that she is one ugly machine. However misguided or unconventional , someone had a vision or a dream of building it and I would have to guess that it took a ton of work to get it to where it is now.  My hats off to the dreamers out there.

[dtcerrato]

Kudos to you Gary for acknowledging the Dreamers! I can only imagine how many people in the world would consider all us bus nuts totally insane for pouring the $$$ into such a hobby without return - unless you live in at least part of your (our) dream - then it may be well worth it don't ya think? 

[pabusnut]

If you say it is art, then price is irrelevant!

[uncle ned]

My wonderful neighbors complained about my old MG's and Motorcycles setting around to the city.

The members of the city council declared them art.

End of complaint.

uncle ned