Fuel range concerns with 2 door Sasquatch

[beachman101]

Not the car for you if MPGs are a concern.

range is the issue here not exactly the MPG. small tank.

Sponsored

 

[Steamroller72]

I live within 3 miles of 10 gas stations, a Target, a Walmart, 2 supermarkets, and 15 fast food take out joints...

Fuel economy literally means nothing to me. I'll gas that MFer every other day! ?

Bottom line is I WANT A BRONCO. I'll deal with any shortcomings that result from my addiction.

 

[Jcarr210]

I just cant see 15mpg. My 2015 f150 supercrew 4x4 with the 2.7 and a 6 speed auto, not 10 the speed, got 20.6ish mpg stock and dropped to 18.3ish with 6 inch lift and 35' tires.

 

[Loesch]

This is my single largest concern with buying a Bronco. I have a 2016 F150 3.5 Ecoboost with the 36 gallon tank and it's the best feature I never knew that I needed! I'm spoiled. With 305/65R-18 K02's I'm getting about 17.5mpg average. Not having to fill up for over 600 miles when it's 0 degrees outside is the best and I worry that I'll miss that too much if I go through with the Bronco.

 

[AzScorpion]

range is the issue here not exactly the MPG. small tank.

It kind of is. The better the mpg the longer range you can drive it. Some who own Rangers swear they can't get better than 17 mpg while others like my self are averaging 21.6 according to my Fuelly app.

My latest trip the other day down to MX with the cruise set to 75 mph I got 26.1 mpg. It's really going to come down to driving habits (lead foot or grandma driving) and terrain/elevation. These Ecoboost are finicky in that any slight incline and you're into the boost and your mpg go down. Keep them nice and steady and you're in Eco mode.

 

[calgecko]

The 2020 Ford Ranger gets 20 - 24mpg per fuel economy dot gov (official EPA rating). It has a curb weight of 3,922 lbs. - 4441 lbs. and has a GVWR of 6050 lbs.

The 2021 Explorer has a much closer curb weight to the Bronco, at 4,345 lbs. With the same engine, in AWD (closest to 4WD), it gets 20 - 27 mpg.

The 2021 Ford Bronco 2D curb weight is 4319 - 4977 lbs with the same 2.3L (GVWR isn't listed). So, the Bronco is roughly ten percent heavier than the Ranger, and shaped differently.

Makes me think the Bronco will be closer to 18 - 25mpg with the 2.3L and less with the 2.7L

Interestingly enough, the Ranger has a max tow rating of 7,500 lbs, the Explorer 5,300 and the Bronco is 3,500.

Another interesting thing that I found, which I didn't realize EPA reported was E85 numbers. Fuel mileage for the Explorer is 30% lower with E85. All, except premium, has ethanol where I live. Even if it's 10% ethanol that could mean 20% lower mileage (10% lower per 5% ethanol, assumed from E85 providing 30% less mileage). That would mean a vehicle's mileage in a state that has ethanol could be rated at 18 - 25 mpg and one could realistically expect 14.5 - 20 mpg. Quite a dramatic difference.

I found this on the US Energy Information site:

"The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than pure gasoline. The impact of fuel ethanol on vehicle fuel economy varies depending on the amount of denaturant that is added to the ethanol. The energy content of denaturant is about equal to the energy content of pure gasoline. In general, vehicle fuel economy may decrease by about 3% when using E10 relative to gasoline that does not contain fuel ethanol."

I think they missed a zero after the "3", because the EPA ratings of mileage are more similar to 18mpg down to 14mpg using E85 (as a real example), which is 22%, not 3%.

EPA ratings are a joke - my ecoboost Mustang is 'rated' for 21 city/32 highway. In reality, with 'normal' driving, my OVERALL average is 18.8mpg with a mix of 50/50 city/highway driving.

 

[AcesandEights]

EPA ratings are a joke - my ecoboost Mustang is 'rated' for 21 city/32 highway. In reality, with 'normal' driving, my OVERALL average is 18.8mpg with a mix of 50/50 city/highway driving.

I don't get it.

 

[calgecko]

I don't get it.

what don't you understand? I'm saying the EPA ratings that the manufacturers list are NOT real world expectations - they are BEST CASE scenarios - set the cruise control at 55mph with a tailwind downhill, and you might hit the highway estimate... for city, you probably have to keep it below 2500rpm in order to hit their estimate for that..

So - if the Bronco comes out with EPA estimates of 18 city / 22 highway , I'd expect real world results to be about 14-15

 

[AcesandEights]

@calgecko You said it was a joke. Maybe it just wasn't funny?

 

[Lilj4425]

Buy a Prius or Tesla. Problem solved.

 

[Rick Astley]

It kind of is. The better the mpg the longer range you can drive it. Some who own Rangers swear they can't get better than 17 mpg while others like my self are averaging 21.6 according to my Fuelly app.

My latest trip the other day down to MX with the cruise set to 75 mph I got 26.1 mpg. It's really going to come down to driving habits (lead foot or grandma driving) and terrain/elevation. These Ecoboost are finicky in that any slight incline and you're into the boost and your mpg go down. Keep them nice and steady and you're in Eco mode.

We averaged 30.02 mpg in our '19 Ranger Lariat over ~2,500 miles to/from Glacier National Park, including about a dozen trips on Going To The Sun road (which is very slow and at elevation) with ~800 lbs in the bed and the bed cover closed.

I expect Bronco to be 1.5 mpg short of that due to it's lovely breadbox shape and protruding wheels compared to Ranger.

Full disclosure: Ranger MPG drops to about 10 when towing any reasonably sized trailer. We have a single axle that comes in at about 4,000 (overloaded, yes I know) plus a touch under 1K lbs in the bed and have been getting 12 mpg even up mountain passes.

 

[AcesandEights]

Is that overloaded? I thought the Ranger had a 7500 tow rating?

 

[TX_Bronco77]

I have been pretty set on getting a base 2 door with the Sasquatch package due to the value. However, since the fuel tank size is 16.9 gallons on the two door and the EPA mpg ratings are not out yet, I'm worried the fuel range may be low. If the Sasquatch get 15 to 16 mpg (based on some rough numbers from similar vehicles and 35's), the range may only be 250 to 270 miles. I have no problem with 15 mpg but it would probably get old having to fill up every couple of days. Anyone else worried about the potential range of a 2 door with Sasquatch?

My Mustang 5.0 gets 15.7 MPG in sport mode full time and with me putting the hammer down every chance I get. I will be just fine in the Bronco, of everything I worry about fuel economy is not one of them at all.

Sponsored