Sponsored

2.3 ECO, MPG with Lift/Tires

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Threads
45
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
1,299
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 84 LTD 331 w/Vortech, 86 Capri 5.0 turbo, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
Your Bronco Model
Undecided

Jalisurr

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Threads
10
Messages
707
Reaction score
1,568
Location
Oklahoma
Vehicle(s)
'09 Corvette Z06, '97 Mitsubishi Pajero Evo
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
The 2.7 won't get any better gas mileage with bigger tires and a lift, it'll just be happier doing it. Can't really get away from bad aero and more rotating mass.

Personally my mitsubishi is already absolutely terrible on gas for its size, my best recorded mileage was 18mpg so not really an issue for me, I'm sure the Bronco would be at least a bit better.
 

Nickp

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Threads
100
Messages
3,590
Reaction score
17,763
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2010 WRANGLER THAT GEICO SPENT $14K FIXING
Your Bronco Model
Base
This is why I want a manual. I get 20 MPG with my 10 year old 4-door Jeep also on 33’s. Throw that bitch in 6th on the highway, coast to lights. So much more efficient than a slush box.
 

Stampede.Offroad

Badlands
Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Threads
31
Messages
2,426
Reaction score
4,375
Location
SD
Vehicle(s)
junk
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
My current ride gets like...12.

So I'm not concerned lol
Yeah, I can get better mileage in a 3/4 ton truck than I can in my car, so I'm pretty sure any new engine in a Bronco will be more efficient.
 

Sponsored

SpursFan

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Brian
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Threads
2
Messages
619
Reaction score
977
Location
TX
Vehicle(s)
350r, F150, Expedition, Cayenne and the others.
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
Cool thread, good to see so many lifting their new rangers some getting decent mileage. I'd say the 2.7 will get better mileage than the 2.3 in a lifted scenario but I base that on my 3.5 got better mileage towing than the 2.7 we had for a short while( same boat and routes). There more torque you can make out of boost the better your mileage will be.
 

Carolina Jim

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Threads
29
Messages
3,750
Reaction score
10,443
Location
Highlands
Vehicle(s)
2021 Bronco 2-door
Your Bronco Model
Black Diamond
If Ford's 2.3L is anything like my Renegade Trailhawk, 'capable' is an apt description - but not what you'd think of as 'peppy'.

Renegade is ~3,500lbs...has the 2.4L rated at 180hp.

I live in the Appalachian mountains, so I'm seldom in the flatlands. While I can't say Jeep's 2.4L strains to make the climbs, I'm hoping Ford's 2.7 6 cyl feels more like it Wants to get to the top.
 

Nickp

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Threads
100
Messages
3,590
Reaction score
17,763
Location
Phoenix
Vehicle(s)
2010 WRANGLER THAT GEICO SPENT $14K FIXING
Your Bronco Model
Base
How do you figure a naturally-aspirated 2.4L putting out 180HP @ 6,400RPM and 175FtLbs @ 3,900RPM is comparable to a turbo-charged 2.3L putting out 270HP @ 5,500RPM and 310FtLbs @ 3,000RPM? That is 50% more horsepower and 77% more torque at lower RPM to boot.

I know modern cars have made people power-drunk, but for context, the 5.8L Windsor V8 (the top engine option for the full size Bronco from 1982-1996) made 210HP @ 3,600RPM and 325FtLbs @ 2,800RPM during its best years. That is 60HP less and only 15FtLbs more than the base 2.3L coming out in the 2021 Bronco.
my heavy ass wrangler 4-door 3.8 with 205 horsepower and 250 ft-lbs on 285/70r/17 tires and 3.21 gears is perfectly adequate speed wise. Am I winning races no, but for daily driving it’s fine. (Just looked it up; this is only a bit less powerful than the 302 V8 Bronco in the final years but the FSB was also 500 pounds heavier)

the Bronco even with the 4 cylinder will be fast as shit especially geared correctly.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Threads
45
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
1,299
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 84 LTD 331 w/Vortech, 86 Capri 5.0 turbo, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
How do you figure a naturally-aspirated 2.4L putting out 180HP @ 6,400RPM and 175FtLbs @ 3,900RPM is comparable to a turbo-charged 2.3L putting out 270HP @ 5,500RPM and 310FtLbs @ 3,000RPM? That is 50% more horsepower and 77% more torque at lower RPM to boot.

I know modern cars have made people power-drunk, but for context, the 5.8L Windsor V8 (the top engine option for the full size Bronco from 1982-1996) made 210HP @ 3,600RPM and 325FtLbs @ 2,800RPM during its best years. That is 60HP less and only 15FtLbs more than the base 2.3L coming out in the 2021 Bronco.
And probably 13:1 AF vs 10-11:1 @ those power levels. Efficiencies are up of course overall, but I'm on my 4th ECO and they just aren't that great, MPGwise, under constant medium to higher loads. It's fine when you have the choice of economy or power (I can get anywhere from 16 MPG dogging it to 34 MPG pure constant, flat sea level, highway, no wind, @ 57 MPH) in my Fusion 2.7, but if you lift/tire it up and add wind grabbing bumpers, winches, lights, soft or no tops, you are going to be under boost a lot more than even stock. Ideally since I can't have a 5.0, my next choice would be another combo I can't have, a lower boost 3.5 ECO (or a boost curve that ramps up quick but fades off on the high end, so it can be de-rated to not piss on the Raptor numbers, etc...)

As for 2.3 vs 2.7. 2.7 might not get better mileage, but it is no penalty over the smaller ECO. At least in my case, went from 2.0 AWD to 2.7 Sport and really only lost 1-2 MPG, since normal driving needed so much less throttle (and hence boost). The 10 speeds and a little better spread on engine sizes should help, but I still don't think there will be any mileage penalty of a 2.7 vs 2.3, when moderately built up for trail duty.
 

Jalisurr

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Threads
10
Messages
707
Reaction score
1,568
Location
Oklahoma
Vehicle(s)
'09 Corvette Z06, '97 Mitsubishi Pajero Evo
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
There probably won't be much of a difference for most people's driving styles to notice an anecdotal difference, but if you were to test them scientifically, the 2.3L should yield measurably better fuel economy under all situations.

People like to think big engines are more efficient at higher loads than small engines, but it all comes down to BSFC (assuming the two engines have sufficient power for the application). Without hard numbers from Ford, it is hard to say how much more efficient the 2.3L is than the 2.7L, but between the smaller displacement and lower cylinder count, I am sure it is measurably better.
Up to a point, yes. At some point when the little engine is being driven flat out everywhere and the big one is just lugging along to keep up, the big one will be better for fuel economy. A little 4 cyl sports car at its absolute top speed should be getting worse fuel economy than a bigger engined one going that same speed all else being equal.

BSFC (brake-specific fuel consumption, for the sake of completeness) is the metric to look at, but any engine will have different values for it at different speeds and loads. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some value of load where the 2.7 has a better number than the 2.3. I'm skeptical that that point would be just with bigger tires, but I would expect it to exist if you put enough load on.

While it's obviously not a strictly scientific test, this gets the point across:
 

Sponsored
OP
OP

OX1

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
May 25, 2017
Threads
45
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
1,299
Location
jackson nj
Vehicle(s)
59 Bird, 70, 74, 78, 79 Broncos, 84 LTD 331 w/Vortech, 86 Capri 5.0 turbo, 14 Stang GT, 17 Fusion Sport
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
Have to keep in mind when I say mild lift/tires, it's going to be much more aggressive than
what others are thinking when they see "mild". The smallest tire I would run would be 36's.

Anything less and you are not going to get too far tooling around in the Pine Barren swamps of NJ.
It not all about crawling or high speed. No one has really touched on mudding much, in all these conversations.
 

BroncoBuyer

Base
Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Threads
10
Messages
343
Reaction score
622
Location
Phoenix AZ
Vehicle(s)
GMC
Your Bronco Model
Base
The only problem with that video....., the Beamer was drafting the Prius the whole time and therefore making the Prius basically pull the Beamer behind it. Drafting is real and is what probably accounted for such horrible mileage in the Prius and great mileage in the Beamer.

That test was a complete joke BUT, I do agree with the point they are trying to make as I have a real life experience with the issue.
years ago, my wife has owned (4) Jeep Grand Cherokee’s in the 2000-2004 model range. This was still when they were the real small Grand cherokees, they were awesome off roaders and were over 4” narrower width than the newer versions.
We had three 4.7 HO V8’s and one 4.0 6 cyl.. All were limited 4x4’s. All 3 V8’s she had got way better mileage than the 6 cyl. Something like 5 mpg better. For the record, my wife is a super consistent driver and not a lead foot as I am so her mileage in anything she drives is always about as good as you can get. She never drives like she’s in a hurry.
 

SpursFan

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Brian
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Threads
2
Messages
619
Reaction score
977
Location
TX
Vehicle(s)
350r, F150, Expedition, Cayenne and the others.
Your Bronco Model
Badlands
Clubs
 
It is all in your head/anecdotal. The smaller displacement engine (especially with fewer cylinders as is the case with 2.3L I4 vs. 2.7L V6) will have a better BSFC. There is a reason manufacturers are down-sizing engines...
BSFC is anecdotal in this discussion. There countless other factors that come into play to determine real world platform performance vs another. I'm my personal experience and commercial fleet the larger displacements are all averaging better MPG. Logged and validated over 100's of thousands of miles.
 

jamanrr

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jim
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
110
Reaction score
59
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
18 Ford F150 Powerstroke,
Your Bronco Model
Undecided
My 2018 F150 power stroke gets 26 mpg on a range of 600 miles per tank. Best truck gas mileage I have ever gotten of course it is a fx4 diesel.
Sponsored

 
 


Top