lol, my 73 has a 21 gallon tank, and more range than the 6G.You want a small tank, go buy a 69 or earlier Bronco with a single 12 gallon tank & a thirsty V-8
Sponsored
lol, my 73 has a 21 gallon tank, and more range than the 6G.You want a small tank, go buy a 69 or earlier Bronco with a single 12 gallon tank & a thirsty V-8
It won’t hold a much bigger tank......that’s why my 1970 had 2 tanks....a 14 gal main and a 10 gal reserve (mounted under the driver’s seat with a petcock valve to make the switch)If did buy one I would 200 percent restore with a bigger tank (and a new engine too while we’re at it) lol
I hear ya. Like-to-like, the 2 vs 4 door weight penalty isn't nearly as severe.You can't compare heaviest to lightest, you have to compare trim to trim. All else equal, a 2dr saves just under 200lbs.
My 76 had the 10 & 12lol, my 73 has a 21 gallon tank, and more range than the 6G.
On my Honda 600F3, 6th gear, 120kph, 6000 rpm, 90km on 4 litres.....so 52.9 USmpg.Yeah for sure less weight equates to better fuel economy. But, I could get 30+ mpg out of my r1, But I ride it hard when I do ride. Fuel economy comes down mostly to how the vehicle is driven.
Yeah, the argument made for "eco"boost engines giving the Bronco some kind of fuel savings advantage went right out the window.I fully expect that 90-95% of my miles will be driving to work and back. So the fact that a 4400 lb Bronco with the Eco-boost gets worse mileage than my 6600 lb Expedition with the old 5.4 is somewhat disconcerting.
Wouldn't matter so much if Ford would put in a decent size fuel tank.