Update! MPG estimate from gauge image (for 4 Bronco Badlands Overland)

[toughtoaster]

I can't tell if the whole instrument cluster is digital or if the right-side is digital with the left side being either analog or some kind of hybrid version with it only showing MPH/temp? Hopefully it's more akin to the new F-150 with it being all digital and customizable. The screenshots in this thread are concerning if the left side is always mph. I don't know why anyone would want mph to show on the same screen, twice.

Yeah I hate that current setup. Hopefully this is one of those "pre-production" models and will change at build. Thing is ugly and useless as is in my opinion. I posted else where I would love to see what they have in the F-150 or the new Mustangs.

Sponsored

 

[Broncocito]

I've read that you wont get accurate numbers until about 3k miles but I'm sure it's close to being as accurate as the calculations.

I have also read on the 2.7 it gets better mileage over time.

 

[Toastedtostito]

Thank you for answering the question that I asked. I got responses about a v8 in a Sherman tank makes 5mpg so its less efficient then a 4 cylinder bronco (whatever that means), and how you get better fuel economy in a corvette with constant RPM then you do at full throttle. I was asking if everything was the same, vehicle, speed, weight, etc. Thank you for actually reading and understanding what was being asked. With that said that makes since I never thought to think that the drive ratios were the same. I was sort of looking at it like 6 guys moving 10 stones would be less work then 4 guys moving 10 stones kind of thing. Again thank you ??

 

[Suburban_Creep]

That's what

I have also read on the 2.7 it gets better mileage over time.

That's kinda what I meant by it wont be accurate. EPA ratings will show up later.

 

[Vigor]

I can't tell if the whole instrument cluster is digital or if the right-side is digital with the left side being either analog or some kind of hybrid version with it only showing MPH/temp? Hopefully it's more akin to the new F-150 with it being all digital and customizable. The screenshots in this thread are concerning if the left side is always mph. I don't know why anyone would want mph to show on the same screen, twice.

Its customizable. There's different views

 

[Toastedtostito]

Corvettes get excellent highway mileage as the engine is essentially at idle while going 60-70 mph. But I've certainly had tanks with 5-7 mpg out of a ZR1 on track.

Your using immensely general concepts to explain why a bread box pushed through air will achieve efficiency. Under the same concept Sherman tanks should be getting 50 mpg since they made about 700 ft lb torque. Yet they got about 3-5 mpg if memory served. Then you have transmission gearing. RON effects, bla bla bla. The topic is deeper than "Size of engine = mpg"

I understand what you are saying, and you are right, but what I was asking is if you take the engine out of that Sherman tank and put in a 4cylinder (for example) would that get better mpg. My thought is the 4cylinder would have to work harder then the 6cylinder to move the weight of the bronco (assuming same weight) therefore being less efficient. If you have 6 people lifting a 100lb boulder each person would be doing less work than if you had 4 people lifting that same boulder. I get it is very generalized and size doesn't equal mpg directly, but why would I buy the smaller engine if I am not getting a manual?

 

[Taco_Sexual]

The left side speedometer is analog. There is a digital bar for temp below it. The screen is rectangular on the right.

I hope this is something that gets cleaned up during production. It just looks ugly from a design a perspective. Either make something all analog or all digital. Given the F150, Raptor and Explorer all offer fully digital clusters I don't understand why Ford wouldn't bring it to the Bronco.

 

[Willwork4bronco]

Thank you for answering the question that I asked. I got responses about a v8 in a Sherman tank makes 5mpg so its less efficient then a 4 cylinder bronco (whatever that means), and how you get better fuel economy in a corvette with constant RPM then you do at full throttle. I was asking if everything was the same, vehicle, speed, weight, etc. Thank you for actually reading and understanding what was being asked. With that said that makes since I never thought to think that the drive ratios were the same. I was sort of looking at it like 6 guys moving 10 stones would be less work then 4 guys moving 10 stones kind of thing. Again thank you ??

Personally I think it is going to depend a lot more on your driving conditions. The more you lean to stop and go the 2.7 will probably do just as good or better than the 2.3. The more it leans to freeway driving the 2.3 will probably do a lot better, mixed it’s probably with in 1-2 MPG. That’s just based on the getimated weight and my experience no science.

 

[jswan]

EDIT: 11/16/2020 12:01 PST
Confirmed:
4 door badlands Overland
tire size 35” MT BFG KM3

Recently found this picture in a thread; stated that it was from a badlands, saw the 96 miles in a quarter tank.

Edit:
4 door
Tank size 20.8
96 miles per quarter tank
384miles/tank
384/20.8 =. 18.5 MPG

just a speculation, don’t quote me but pretty decent mpg for a badlands if I’m correct
Any thoughts?

Photo Shared by: @ZackDanger
Photo Belongs to: UTAH.BRONCO @Cooppierce
Thanks and Credit to @Cooppierce
For pics and confirmed Info

With my 2018 Mustang GT Premium I get...uh, ah. Nevermind.
I'm looking forward to whatever my 2.7 SQ-Badlands can get me!
Should be less of a right foot tax. I'mma hoping!

 

[Beebe Senior]

The problem is you don't know if the 1/4 tank is heavy or light. If it has 1 extra gallon then math gets thrown all off.

 

[2017 Silver Lobo]

Same... If its not in boost 75% of the time, Then whats the point of a turbo?

Plus you have to push the Eco Boost engines a little every once in awhile at least. To help burn up the deposits on the turbos and the valves

Also if you are new to Eco Boost or a turboed engine. I would highly recommend a catch can system to prolong engine life from the valves caking up and sticking.

 

[Rydfree]

I'm not sure trying to estimate fuel efficency from a concept vehicle that has only been driven off a trailer a few hundred feet at a time and back is going to be accurate at all . LOL

A qtr tank of fuel was probably all that was put in it to begin with .

 

[Bulletbill]

I doubt this will be close to the actual numbers. In another shot of the dash, one of the posters noted that it had over a 1000 miles till empty. Until there is more hard data from Ford I’m not going to get worked up about the fuel numbers, and I wouldn’t let this thread discourage or encourage anyone on the Broncos fuel economy.

 

[HarderCorer]

If you have 6 people lifting a 100lb boulder each person would be doing less work than if you had 4 people lifting that same boulder. I get it is very generalized and size doesn't equal mpg directly, but why would I buy the smaller engine if I am not getting a manual?

Think of it this way. Yes with only 4 people they do work harder but they get the job done and you still have to buy pizza for everyone: 6 guys or 4 slightly hungrier guys...

 

[mrcx]

Whether it is in my wife's AT vehicle or my previous MT vehicles, I've always been able to get better MPG than EPA if I tried. But driving like that sucks!!! I'm excluding my current daily driver as I don't know what the EPA is on it or what MPG I get.
Same with my motorcycles. I can get 60+ MPG driving carefully, or I can get in the 40's and have a blast every time I ride. Why would I want to be sitting on a 600lb machine with 150hp and go 0-60 in 10 seconds to get a little extra mileage? Answer, I don't. I'd rather get there in 3 seconds with a huge smile on my face.
For me, I don't want driving to be a chore trying to maximize MPG, I want to just enjoy the ride.

Sponsored