2021 Bronco MPG?

[tb8983]

On one of the moab videos they show a glimpa of a dash in a 4door 4cyl and it was only 15.8

Sponsored

 

[zaki]

ICE Bronco is probably going to be one of the last hurrahs for solely gasoline powered SUV’s. It’s ironic that hybrid, PHEV and EV are just around the corner when gasoline prices are at a historic low.

Automakers don’t plan for the next year but for the next decade. They never saw these gas prices coming either.

But there is good for us consumers in this. By the time the PHEV and EVs are all sorted out and the prices are comparable to gasoline powered cars we will be ready for our next adventure.
In the meantime, enjoy the low gas prices and gas that engine and hear that internal combustion engine roar in all its glory.

You will be telling your children and grandchildren all about when real men drove real cars!?

 

[Doggin_it]

I’d so Be interested in what people in lifted f150s with 35s get with the 2.7. I know a few with lifted 3.5s and they lost their eco part of the boost. Lol

 

[da_jokker]

For those that don't know.. fuelly.com provides the best answer for this. You can look up real world numbers on Rangers and F-150 with the specific engine.

The claimed numbers by the EPA are never right and real world is lower.

Can't look them up right now but want to say the newer F150s with 2.7 were about 19 and the newer rangers 2.3 were 20.

Sasquatch is the unknown but that is why the WT is so crucial because it comes with it so we'll be able to compare the fake EPA to the other trims and go from there.

 

[BroncoSarge]

My truck is worse, so it will be an upgrade for me

 

[Broncomputer]

I was optimistic especially with comparable Ranger numbers. However....

The Ranger 4x4 which weighs similar to the Bronco gets around 15mpg in real world use:

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27452851/2019-ford-ranger-fuel-economy/

However the Ranger states 22mpg combined on the sticker.

If I can get in the 20's that would be awesome. But like any "fun" car that I've owned, like an S2000 or WRX, I would consistently get 18-19mpg, even though the sticker said 23-24 combined.

Larger tires and a manual transmission for me and I think I'd be lucky to get 15mpg.

Kind of a bummer. I was hoping for mid 20's but whatever. I ultimately don't drive much anyway and most importantly the difference between 15mpg and 20mpg for me is literally $10 a month.

 

[Scohin]

My 2017 Fusion Sport 2.7L weighs ~4100 lbs and manages ~20mpg in mixed driving (26mpg on interstate trips at 75-80mph). Yet our 2020 Navigator 3.5L EB (450hp/500lb/ft) averages ~19mpg around town. Neither are driven “hard”. EPA estimates don’t always equate to real world fuel economy.

Yeah my Fusion Titanium gets ~23mpg w/combined and 25.8 is the highest I've seen it after a trip to Moab

 

[wvmtneer]

I’d so Be interested in what people in lifted f150s with 35s get with the 2.7. I know a few with lifted 3.5s and they lost their eco part of the boost. Lol

I’d assume sasquatch would be similar to Raptor. Any raptor owners want to share their mileage?

 

[da_jokker]

One of the things (pre bronco) that kept me from buying a Tacoma, 4Runner, or Wrangler was their bad Gas mileage... my question is will Bronco's 2.7 Sasquatch get any better?

 

[da_jokker]

Some real world....

 

[Metal_Horses]

My Fusion Energi over the past 5 years and 76k miles has a lifetime avg of 61 MPG.... The Bronco could get 6 MPG for all I care- I've done my part - I'm covered.

LOL.

61 seems low actually. You must do a lot of long distance driving. My Energi was averaging in the mid 90's MPG until this COVID kept me at home for work, now it sits at 79 MPG.

It's been a great car, but a Mach-e will be replacing it before the Bronco arrives.

 

[BroncBro]

For those that don't know.. fuelly.com provides the best answer for this. You can look up real world numbers on Rangers and F-150 with the specific engine.

The claimed numbers by the EPA are never right and real world is lower.

Can't look them up right now but want to say the newer F150s with 2.7 were about 19 and the newer rangers 2.3 were 20.

Sasquatch is the unknown but that is why the WT is so crucial because it comes with it so we'll be able to compare the fake EPA to the other trims and go from there.

Thats not always the case. It depends how you drive. I’ve always attained more than the manufacturers fuel average.

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

I think its hilarious that people even consider a vehicle like this if they are worried about fuel mileage. I understand fuel prices are different everywhere. Some even justify another car payment with insurance and maintenance costs, just to save 5 mpg. I did the same thing when I had my '95 Lightning getting 9 mpg. That math never worked out, and I missed out on a lot of drive time with a really fun truck. Then I started thanking Prius owners for saving fuel so I had more to burn. Buy it. Drive it. Enjoy it. Like the old saying goes, "if you have to ask, you can't afford it".

It's not a worry my dude, it's just annoying to shop for a 2-door (compact) rig that gets 16-19 MPG regardless of which of the two engines you choose. Same goes for the jeep and it's why I've never bought one. (I'd buy the jeep turbo diesel already if they put in the 2 door jeep.) At least Ford is giving us some power to go with the shitty MPG.

You've got two engines that put out pretty much identical numbers across the board and cost about 2K difference... Why even offer two options? The manual is the only reason I'm looking at the 4 banger here, but will probably go with the 2.7

Don't get me wrong, I'll happy enough with the Bronco to be a buyer, but it's over built for what I really want - (even the base.)

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

They'll publish the numbers, but it'll be for the most fuel-efficient version of the 2.3 and the 2.7 to make the Bronco look good.

If you get a sasquatch 4-Door badlands you won't get the advertised MPG due to the following:

1) I've heard Badlands do not have the active grille shutters (little worse MPG)
2) Sasquatch package will for sure be worse (heavier tires and a slight lift due to the tires)
3) Slightly heavier due to the sway bar disconnect and front/rear lockers etc. Not much but everything adds up.

Not to mention if you add any of the other accessories. It'll add weight and/or make it less aerodynamic.

I thought window sticker MPG had to be listed "as equipped." Depending on the trim of the mustangs with the 2.3 the MPG ranges from 26 HWY to 32 HWY on the window sticker.

Sponsored