Official MPG figures: 2021 Bronco 2.3L and 2.7L fuel economy

[markregel]

Via Bronco Nation

The competition

More reference points / technical specs chart for comparing the trims / models:

The base numbers of 20 and 22 are more than respectable. My Mazda6 sedan is rated 19 city. The Ranger pickup is 20 and 24. The Bronco is a 4WD TRUCK with 300HP -- if you are one expressing shock at these numbers you are either ignorant or a troll. That said no 4WD truck is the vehicle to buy if your objective is MPG.

Sponsored

 

[66chill]

With these numbers can someone explain why they even went with the eco boost instead of a naturally aspirated engine? V8 (cough cough)

Aside from torque curve which has been mentioned numerous times, also elevation. A turbo motor is going to perform far better at elevation than an N/A engine would where it's starving to breathe.

 

[BlueOvalBandit]

Overall numbers look about where I imagined, except the 2.3l manual vs 2.7l auto highway numbers. I figured at least 1 maybe 2 mpg higher for the 2.3, nothing huge. Thought the final OD drive might be different but nope. The final OD gearing is virtually the same 0.64 vs 0.636 on the auto.

 

[TalexBrizzley]

Charge at home/garage in the middle of the night when your asleep? I’ve had 3 EV’s in past 4 years ( 2 BMW , 1 Tesla) never been to a public charging station.

Agreed, neither have I. I've learned while having "Tesla Model 3" in my bio that an EV conversation is something to avoid on this forum. It'll be a shock going from charging overnight at home to 18 MPG at $3.80 here in SoCal.

 

[Wanted33]

Please consider the Wrangler makes no where near 400ftlbs of torque. I see other posts explaining that their mid 80's v8 gets the same mileage but wait! they are no where near that range either.
You all need to consider the apples to apples look at the gains you get for that mileage it gets.
Don't just target MPG. Look at power output, gearing tire size etc. There are few (None)units out there with over 400 ft lbs of torque rolling on factory 35's posting better MPG results.
What I see is a bunch of kids looking in the wrong toy box for their favorite toy.
Go ahead, get a wrangler I believe most will never use a Bronco for what its made for. If you really will not need this amount of torque, tire size, sway bar disconnect, trail turn assist.....look for a different vehicle because this one isn't for you. Just the facts bro.

I already have a Wrangler, and it will go anywhere the Bronco will with less torque. While the Bronco is built to go off road, the Jeep is also. The fact you stated is correct, and those people will make up the vast majority of people that will want, or buy the Bronco. And, those are the ones that will be more concerned with mpgs than those that use there's primarily off road. And those are the ones that will give Ford the profit they want in this venture. I just think it's short sighted on Fords part to not be more concerned with 2-3 more mpgs. As I've stated many times we will use our Bronco like we do our Jeep. That will be for long road trips (where that 2-3 more mpgs will make a big difference), and light off roading where mpgs aren't a concern.

I'm not saying I won't move forward with buying a Bronco. Just stating how I see it.

 

[Toaster]

Yes. I have a 4 door, steel bumper group and all stock

this is what I’m getting on my JL. So what it comes down to is that the bronco should be better for me at least

 

[buzpro]

so why is the MPG worse than a F150? is the massive F150 more aerodynamic?

 

[Teewsda]

Lol wonderful thread.
Makes no difference to me.
Just waiting on dilevery.

 

[Raz4back]

this is what I’m getting on my JL. So what it comes down to is that the bronco should be better for me at least

That’s crazy

 

[BrentC]

How do you figure? On like for like trims the mileage is identical between AT/MT. That's with the MT being handicapped with a lower final drive resulting in higher RPMs at the same speeds.

Good point. There is no direct comparison of transmissions without all other factors being fixed. It’s very close, though, much closer than between auto/manual transmissions of the past.

 

[Ksjrb03]

so why is the MPG worse than a F150? is the massive F150 more aerodynamic?

Gearing, tires, and aerodynamics.

 

[Dillhole]

Well shit 17 with a 2.7 Sassy Base is better than my 2dr JK 3.6l on small and light 33's on paper. Hovering around 14.1 mpg at the moment. Commute is absolute hell for mileage so I'm a bad gauge so even with the Bronco it'll probably end up being about the same as my Jeep in real world applications.

 

[Daktari]

not particularly impressive, a bit more range would have been nice. It's a bit better than my almost 19 year old Taco and has a larger tank, but more range is always better than less. Not a fan of jerry cans and all that.
Now let's get these things to people so we can see some real world numbers!

Will be interesting to compare different roof combos, if they make much of a difference on and off.

 

[Headsong]

Expected a bit better.....shocked that the 4 bang stick is only 2 mpg better than my 6 bang with auto?? C'mon. I'll drop the BS card down on that one.

 

[Deleted member 5064]

Agreed, neither have I. I've learned while having "Tesla Model 3" in my bio that an EV conversation is something to avoid on this forum. It'll be a shock going from charging overnight at home to 18 MPG at $3.80 here in SoCal.

Those Luke in the Mos Isley cantina vibes. I’ll be careful then …

Sponsored