2021 Bronco MPG?

[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.)

Sponsored

 

[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.

 

[Techun]

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

Correct. My lifetime avg is over 35 in my fiesta st and 33 in my na miata.

Somehow the miata is rated at 22 combined. I assume from translating the old epa values to the new measures.

 

[Bronco4lyfe85]

If I can average 18.5 MPG in a 4200lb 6.4L Challenger that doesn’t go on the highway but 3 times a year you can at least match that in a turbo 4 Bronco. I’m at 18.5 and 98% of my driving of that car is fast, faster and even faster, oh and at the track.

 

[Used2jeep]

The 4500 lb Ranger with 4wd got in the low 20s using the 2.3 motor.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a27452851/2019-ford-ranger-fuel-economy/

From looking at the results for the 2.7 in the F-150, then that should also be around 20.

These numbers are most likely regular road driving numbers. I think most people buying the Bronco as a daily driver will appreciate that and realize that when 4wd is engaged then all bets are off.

I went to a local lot the other and checked stickers. F150 4x4 2.7 = 18-22, Ranger 4x4 Crew cab 2.3 = 20 - 24. Essentially the same.

 

[Darforce]

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".

well, that’s exactly it...you should ask to make sure you can afford it. What fun is having a really cool vehicle if you are stressing about how much it cost you each month. I’d want to know every penny it‘ll cost me each month including, gas, insurance, maintenance etc. I even check the tires prices. Honestly anyone that’s not doing research into every aspect of a 40-50k investment is a straight up fool (or independently wealthy maybe)

 

[Lee Woiteshek]

Worse case, two lockers and 35's I'd be happy with 18 mpg. I would like to get 400 miles out of a tank, but I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Lakelife36]

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

Larger tires will be a detriment yes but not the manual. Remember the EPA ratings are based on standardized tests and in the manual there are mandated shift points. As far as I understand automatic transmissions nowadays are developed to get good ratings on those tests, while you have a much harder time working the system with manuals due to the fixed shifts. Not to mention autos make up the vast majority of volume so it's not worth it to optimize the manual for the testing but it must definitely is for the auto.

The net result of this is that I would consider it much easier to meet or even exceed EPA ratings with a manual than with an auto. Sure the tested economy isn't as good but it's far closer to real world than the tested economy in the auto. May even be better in the end. Hopefully we get some good comparisons with Broncos from actual users down the line.

 

[RedTetsu13]

So before the pandemic I had the chance to test drive both the 2.3 in the Ranger and the 2.7 in the F150. I did both checks based of the inboard computer so there will be a margin of error but with my driving habits (taking manual control of the gearing and going through both various kinds of stop and go situations) I was getting a rough avg of about 21 mpg between both vehicles (nearly 26 on my hwy run) (Another note I did my test drive in the middle of Michigan Winter so I was running 4H on the entire test drive). My advice is try to find a dealership to test drive both engines and go from there. Further you should assume 1-3 mpg worse due to the off-road nature of the Bronco.

 

[da_jokker]

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.

For me, that is why the Wildtrack is so critical because the EPA should shows us what Sasquatch does the the MPG

 

[da_jokker]

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

You have? Except once, I never have, no matter how much I baby it. The only car I've ever owned that beat the numbers was my Jetta Diesel... got 50 MPG... but we know how that worked out

 

[mC.242]

My '05 Pathfinder averages about 13-14 mpg. So pretty sure the Bronco will be a significant upgrade no matter what.

 

[IXxMcCoyxXl]

Will it change anyone’s mind? 18-20 is my guess. Not buying it for fuel efficiency.

 

[guernsej]

How the shit does something as simple as "2021 Bronco MPG?" elicit a strong negative response in anyone?

 

[JesseS]

Don't know... Don't care..., I drive a 20K lb Motorhome all over the country pulling a car, a few extra pounds won't make any difference.

Sponsored