300 Mile MPG Report [Wildtrak 2.7L, 4-Door]

[BigTex]

As long as you stay out of the passing lane we have no problems, save away.

People who think the left lane on highways are meant for anything other than passing are complete fools and obviously can’t read “LEFT LANE FOR PASSING ONLY”

Sponsored

 

[Wanted33]

Is it just me, or were others expecting better mileage out of these EcoBoost engines, even the 2.7L? Don't get me wrong, I'm still picking mine up when it comes in, but I was hoping for better mileage.

While many of us was hoping for a bit better MPG's, myself included, I can live with the 20 Steve has reported with his Bronco. I hoping these Ford engines will be like my last 3. At somewhere between 3-5K miles they somehow started getting better. My previous 5.0L F-150 gained approx. 1 mpg all around, the wife's 5.0L Mustang jumped right at 2 mpg better all around, and my 2.3L in my Ranger has moved up right at 1 1/2 mpg. Getting broken in seems to do good for these engines. YMMV

 

[tjnoffy]

While many of us was hoping for a bit better MPG's, myself included, I can live with the 20 Steve has reported with his Bronco. I hoping these Ford engines will be like my last 3. At somewhere between 3-5K miles they somehow started getting better. My previous 5.0L F-150 gained approx. 1 mpg all around, the wife's 5.0L Mustang jumped right at 2 mpg better all around, and my 2.3L in my Ranger has moved up right at 1 1/2 mpg. Getting broken in seems to do good for these engines. YMMV

Thanks. I guess I see 2.7L and I think good mileage. Yes, heavy vehicle, to be sure. My 4.6L Mustang hangs in the mid 20's. My wife's 4.0L Edge is in the upper 20's. We've driven nothing but Fords for 30+ years, but I don't think we've had an engine that small (in displacement), except the the 1977 Mercury Capri Ghia (2.8L V6) I had when I was in my early 20's!

 

[Wanted33]

Thanks. I guess I see 2.7L and I think good mileage. Yes, heavy vehicle, to be sure. My 4.6L Mustang hangs in the mid 20's. My wife's 4.0L Edge is in the upper 20's. We've driven nothing but Fords for 30+ years, but I don't think we've had an engine that small (in displacement), except the the 1977 Mercury Capri Ghia (2.8L V6) I had when I was in my early 20's!

Jay, I think we'll (and others) will be fine with the 2.7L. The Ranger is my first turboed engine, and it took me awhile to learn how to start off from a dead stop without getting into the turbo. Starting from a stop is where it was eating my lunch in the mpg department. I've also learned the difference in the engine sound when the turbo comes into play. It's subtle, but it's there. Since I've gotten used to the way an engine with a turbo reacts, the mpgs (at a little over 4K miles) with thve 2.3L has consistently shown better than the posted mpgs. Now, with that said it is quite fun to drive when I don't worry about all of that.

 

[tjnoffy]

Jay, I think we'll (and others) will be fine with the 2.7L. The Ranger is my first turboed engine, and it took me awhile to learn how to start off from a dead stop without getting into the turbo. Starting from a stop is where it was eating my lunch in the mpg department. I've also learned the difference in the engine sound when the turbo comes into play. It's subtle, but it's there. Since I've gotten used to the way an engine with a turbo reacts, the mpgs (at a little over 4K miles) with thve 2.3L has consistently shown better than the posted mpgs. Now, with that said it is quite fun to drive when I don't worry about all of that.

Thanks, Jim. With the Mustang I haven't really worried too much about mileage... it's just too much fun to open her up. Never had a turbo, so good advice on learning how to keep it tamped down when not needed. I guess it's that this mileage seems in line with my 1997 4.6L V8 Expedition, which was also large, and with a larger engine. Was just surprised that these motors don't do better after 2+ decades. But, all in all, I don't track mileage too closely, just an observation.

 

[Wanted33]

Thanks, Jim. With the Mustang I haven't really worried too much about mileage... it's just too much fun to open her up. Never had a turbo, so good advice on learning how to keep it tamped down when not needed. I guess it's that this mileage seems in line with my 1997 4.6L V8 Expedition, which was also large, and with a larger engine. Was just surprised that these motors don't do better after 2+ decades. But, all in all, I don't track mileage too closely, just an observation.

I agree my friend. My 4wd "not to be mentioned brand" has the standard 3.6L 6 cylinder. On our last 5K+ mile road trip it returned 24.8 mpg with the 345 geared rear end. It will do 18-19 mpgs around town. This engine has less power, and less torque than the 2.7L EB. I will say I was surprised when I saw Ford's standard gearing was a 373, but I was hoping the Bronco could still compete with the "not to be mentioned brand" since it comes with the 10 speed tranny. But, it didn't get close. Oh well, I still wants my Bronco. And, as I said I'll be fine with the mpgs it gets.

BTW, the reason I want to change to the Bronco is for the better road manners. While the Jeep JL is much better than the past ones, it's still a SFA with a pitman arm. And, it still has that little bit of play in the steering. It can get a bit tiring on long roads trips, and even more adventurous with a strong cross wind like you get out west. Other than that reason there is none. The Jeep is a fun vehicle.

 

[tjnoffy]

I agree my friend. My 4wd "not to be mentioned brand" has the standard 3.6L 6 cylinder. On our last 5K+ mile road trip it returned 24.8 mpg with the 345 geared rear end. It will do 18-19 mpgs around town. This engine has less power, and less torque than the 2.7L EB. I will say I was surprised when I saw Ford's standard gearing was a 373, but I was hoping the Bronco could still compete with the "not to be mentioned brand" since it comes with the 10 speed tranny. But, it didn't get close. Oh well, I still wants my Bronco. And, as I said I'll be fine with the mpgs it gets.

BTW, the reason I want to change to the Bronco is for the better road manners. While the Jeep JL is much better than the past ones, it's still a SFA with a pitman arm. And, it still has that little bit of play in the steering. It can get a bit tiring on long roads trips, and even more adventurous with a strong cross wind like you get out west. Other than that reason there is none. The Jeep is a fun vehicle.

I'm no auto engineer, but I'm guessing the 373 was for more low-end torque (correct me if I'm wrong on that). I guess that affects the mileage, but makes it a better (quicker?) road vehicle. Not sure how that translates to off road (not something I'm well versed in), but would imagine that may mean more tire slippage.

Loose steering is not fun on a long trip. I've seen a couple of posts from those who have taken delivery that the steering in the Bronco is smooth and tight. So, yes, I'm hoping for a good road trip experience as much as anything.

 

[impulse7]

I'm no auto engineer, but I'm guessing the 373 was for more low-end torque (correct me if I'm wrong on that). I guess that affects the mileage, but makes it a better (quicker?) road vehicle. Not sure how that translates to off road (not something I'm well versed in), but would imagine that may mean more tire slippage.

Loose steering is not fun on a long trip. I've seen a couple of posts from those who have taken delivery that the steering in the Bronco is smooth and tight. So, yes, I'm hoping for a good road trip experience as much as anything.

I have seen in newer Fords EPA ratings are actually lower than what you could actually achieve. Ford being more conservative on numbers. Perhaps Bronco is heavier than competition and a big brick going against the air not very efficient.
Another reason is turbo engines under load are way more inefficient than NA engines. Because ECU will keep the mixture rich to prevent detonation. Real world towing tests show that 5.0 in a F150 is better on gas than 3.5 Ecoboost while towing.

 

[deanfromkelowna]

Great post! My old F150 got 14 to 15 mpg in sport mode 90% of the time so this is fine with me!

 

[Los]

This is good to hear. I’ll take 19mpg on my wildtrak!

19 is good, except the SAS package was not part of this equation....

 

[Natai]

Is it just me, or were others expecting better mileage out of these EcoBoost engines, even the 2.7L? Don't get me wrong, I'm still picking mine up when it comes in, but I was hoping for better mileage.

Seems like the vast majority of reports I've seen are actually better than the EPA estimates - and that's typically when the transmission is likely still learning.
So far I'm pleased with what I've seen - actually not inconceivable I might get 20 MPG on my 4dr BL 2.7L (when it arrives sometime next year).

 

[da_jokker]

On the "other forum" there was a guy who just did a lengthy road trip in a WT. Said he drove about 70 mph on the highway, loaded with camping gear and got 15 miles per gallon.

Ouch

 

[Lainez]

On the "other forum" there was a guy who just did a lengthy road trip in a WT. Said he drove about 70 mph on the highway, loaded with camping gear and got 15 miles per gallon.

Ouch

I guess that is better than previous generations. Graph below does not include Bronco 2021.

Graph from Fuelly

 

[Mr. Nice]

Seems like the vast majority of reports I've seen are actually better than the EPA estimates - and that's typically when the transmission is likely still learning.
So far I'm pleased with what I've seen - actually not inconceivable I might get 20 MPG on my 4dr BL 2.7L (when it arrives sometime next year).

Car and Driver got 15 MPG. They drive like most folks. I believe them, not these overly justifying new owner reports.
Hello? 5000 pounds, big tire drag, horrible aerodynamics, gearing.
Put it in 4WD and you will be down from that.

 

[da_jokker]

Yeah but on another post on this forum, someone just took their BB 2.7, non-Sas on a trip and got in the low 20s.

So going from a 32" tire to a 34.5" tire drops you like 7-8 mpg?

That just doesn't seem right.

Sponsored