Official EPA MPG Mileage for 2021 Bronco posted on fueleconomy.gov

[indio22]

My 2007 Mountaineer 4.6 that has comparable weight gets 17 city and 22 highway and that's with 215,000+ miles. Also has towing capacity of 7500lbs. Was hoping that with 14+ years more technology the numbers would be better. I don't have a lot of confidence in getting that type of miles out of a turbo engine.

Google is showing 2007 Mercury Mountaineer 4WD rated MPG 13 city 18 highway. Do you have some other vehicle config?

Sponsored

 

[Techun]

Yep I have these on my Fiesta and while a lot of people get them tuned out I didn't bother. Usually come on just north of 2k rpm which I'm typically shifting at anyway. It is funny when they pop on while I'm mid upshift though lol.

My fiesta st will light the shift light as low as 1600. Which is just silly.

 

[Stanley Crewell]

Google is showing 2007 Mercury Mountaineer 4WD rated MPG 13 city 18 highway. Do you have some other vehicle config?

My original window sticker said 14 - 20. 16 - 17 is pretty consistent unless lots of stop and go in and around city then it drops to 14 - 15. Highway is consistently 20 - 22 and always has been at steady 65 - 70.

 

[JTBros]

My fiesta st will light the shift light as low as 1600. Which is just silly.

Yeah it’s kinda preposterous at times lol.

 

[buzpro]

2006 Tacoma double cab is listed 18/22 mpg. And that might be with small 215/70 R15 tire size. I don't see that Tacoma as equipped besting Bronco off-road, or getting much better mileage if similarly equipped as Bronco.

MPG was a consideration for me, and I was hoping for the 20 mpg mark. Ford seems to have hit that. I'm surprised people thought it would be significantly higher. How you going to get 25+ mpg from a relatively non-aero high clearance vehicle, especially if adding larger tires and related gearing.

Tacoma TRD (Toyota Racing Development) 4dr has a 4.0 L naturally aspirated V6 engine and is plenty capable off road with R16 wheels .... don't you think the TINY 2.7L engine should produce better MPG?? if not, then why even make a small engine that gives you the same MPG?

 

[DC9atnight]

Every reply you got didn't get your question.

My understanding is that the 2.3 has to work harder with the added weight of the BD. It stays in boost more often and gets poor fuel economy.
With the 2.7, the added weight doesn't affect it as much and can run at a lower rpm and boost less often.

Sorry for being slightly off topic but if the 2.3 BD has to work that much harder and stay in boost more often because of weight, gearing and tires, are BD owners better off ordering the 2.7? Perhaps proving the point, the non Sas BD is the only trim where the mileage actually improves with the 2.7.

 

[AcesandEights]

Yes.

The only reason I see to get the 2.3L is to get the manual.

 

[Delli555]

That's it...canceling my order and waiting for the all electric Bronco to drop in '25.

 

[BlazinGTO]

Sorry for being slightly off topic but if the 2.3 BD has to work that much harder and stay in boost more often because of weight, gearing and tires, are BD owners better off ordering the 2.7? Perhaps proving the point, the non Sas BD is the only trim where the mileage actually improves with the 2.7.

That's on topic. I'll point this out as well...

On the heavy trims that are BD and BL where you see the 2.3 getting worse highway mileage than the 2.7

That 1mpg difference will be a few more mpgs when you are driving at 85.

As a previous poster said. The only case for the 2.3 is getting the manual. If someone is getting the 2.3 with auto, we'll I'd say that's a bad decision. Especially seeing the mpg ratings now.

The people who posted about saving money by saving gas going with the 2.3 must be kinda disappointed. I would be. The fuel savings basically goes from minimal to non existent as you go up trims/weight

On base you gain 2 more mpgs by getting the 2.3
With a generous calculation of 15k miles per year with gas at 4.00, the monetary savings is $304. For me it's 10k miles at 3.40 or so per gallon. I'd save only 170 using premium.

 

[PartyMarty]

So, can we assume that real world numbers are going to be less than this?

So, the 2.7 getting combined 19 will be more like 17 combined?

IDK, it depends on where you are, your highway cruise speeds, and if you coast up to red lights and accelerate hard from red lights. This week for work, I rented a 2021 VW Tiguan (4motion 2.0L turbo engine) rated 21/27/24 cty/hwy/combined, and I averaged just over 30 mpg over 776 miles (computer said 31, real pump numbers were 30 mpg). This included probably 60% of 80-85mph cruise control, 15% city, and the rest at lower speeds (65 mph) through mountain roads (started in Denver and went around Wy mostly on i80). Usually, high speeds will eat away at mpg, but I beat the ratings by a large margin (however, this car is a lot more aerodynamic than a bronco). I have a theory the new EPA fuel economy methods are unrealistically tough on turbo and 4wd or AWD vehicles. Maybe the EPA tests them in 4wd high for all the tests instead of the 2wd we'll be in 90% of the time.

For another example, our jk wrangler will return 22+ mpg at 60-65 mph and its rated for 16/20 cty/hwy, but drop to 17 mpg at 80 mph cruise. Like the Bronco, the garbage aerodynamics are the biggest factor for a wrangler.

My theory is this: the Bronco at 65mph on a freeway at mile-high elevations (thinner air aka less wind resistance, and a turbo that will compensate for less oxygen), will be SIGNIFICANTLY better than the EPA ratings (20+ mpg for sasquatch 2.7L). The Bronco at 80 mph at sea level will be worse than EPA ratings (say 15-16 mpg for sasquatch 2.7L). Mild acceleration and coasting to distant red lights will also yield better than 17 mpg city in the Bronco, but doing the opposite will be significantly worse.

 

[Techun]

Tacoma TRD (Toyota Racing Development) 4dr has a 4.0 L naturally aspirated V6 engine and is plenty capable off road with R16 wheels .... don't you think the TINY 2.7L engine should produce better MPG?? if not, then why even make a small engine that gives you the same MPG?

It's funny that you have to say "TINY" for the bronco 2.7L but you praise the dog turd of the 4.0L that makes as much power as a Camry.

 

[buzpro]

It's funny that you have to say "TINY" for the bronco 2.7L but you praise the dog turd of the 4.0L that makes as much power as a Camry.

and yet it can tow 3500 lbs while the 15 yr old dog turd can tow 6500 ..... WOW how ignorant!!

 

[Username_not_found]

and yet it can tow 3500 lbs while the 15 yr old dog turd can tow 6500 ..... WOW how ignorant!!

I mean, the engine isn't the limiting factor in the towing capacity.

 

[Tricky Dick]

Google is showing 2007 Mercury Mountaineer 4WD rated MPG 13 city 18 highway. Do you have some other vehicle config?

17/22 is almost exactly what we got out of our 07 4.6 Explorer too before it was lifted. Now on 32s it probably compares well to a 4dr 2.3/A10 BD, but gets 12/16.

 

[Techun]

and yet it can tow 3500 lbs while the 15 yr old dog turd can tow 6500 ..... WOW how ignorant!!

The engine is one small piece of towing capability. The 2.7 is way more capable than the 4.0, and honestly the 2.3 spanks it too.

Sponsored