4-door 2.7 engine showing 18.9 mpg

[bajabronco57]

No interest in free money and greater range between filling-up?

While MPG is important to me, I'm far more concerned with miles per tank. I plan on doing longer trips through the desert and I'd prefer not to have to rely on dump cans just to keep up with other vehicles. I was expecting "about" 20MPG so I'm not really moved either way.

Sponsored

 

[TheRealCobraBurnout]

From a Badlands on 33's

Ford guy said it was running 75 mph on hwy - they drove 4 hours to get there.

Is this supposed to be good? Doesn't seem good. But I always seem to have the least fuel efficient vehicle in town.

 

[buzpro]

A tiny 2.7L engine that is not fuel efficient .... how FORD like

just why exactly are these small engines in the market place? why not just do a normally aspirated V6 if consumption is the same ?

 

[BroncoRevital]

Eh not horrible. When you’re driving a brick over 55 miles an hour it’s going to drink a lot. I won’t be surprised if a non Sasquatch Bronco 2.7 gets 20 miles per gallon highway and that will be great.

 

[The Driving Viking]

Hopefully my 2 door Bronco will get 20 mpg + then.

 

[rugbysecondrow]

Am I the only one who doesn't give a crap what the mileage is?
Of course that might be because I drive an '05 2500 Suburban 4x4 with full tow, 4.10 gears and an 8.1L that makes a slurping sound as it goes down the road!

I care less about MPG and more about miles per tank. Stopping to refuel is a waste of time.

 

[BroncoRevital]

I care less about MPG and more about miles per tank. Stopping to refuel is a waste of time.

This doesn’t really make sense to me. They are still one in the same or at least effect each other. MPG is a key factor in this. I mean sure get a giant fuel tank but that will make it heavier and thus use more fuel so....

 

[rugbysecondrow]

This doesn’t really make sense to me. They are still one in the same or at least effect each other. MPG is a key factor in this. I mean sure get a giant fuel tank but that will make it heavier and thus use more fuel so....

The mpg is a means, or variable, to help achieve the miles per tank. Of course I desire mpg to be improved because that helps achieve my goal as well, but that is not the sole metric I care about.

 

[Bdisco]

What I have read is that it will run on 87 but if you put super (only 91 here in Kalifornia) the engine will respond to a degree. I'm very interested in a factory tune but only if it is 30 + HP not 5-10 then its nothing. I will put 91 in it anyway. 20 cents a gallon X 16 gallons= $3.20 more a tankful who cares I just spend 45k on what I hope will be my dream SUV

The wife’s Mazda CX-9 gets 227hp on regular, BUT 250hp if you use the good stuff. 310 torques with either. If the Ford gets a bump like this then she gets top tier fuel all day, every day.

Hopefully Cobb comes out with a tune so we can chase down the hemi rubies.

 

[Gutter Clown]

Squatched?

OP said on 33" tires.

35" stock tires = Sasquatch
<35" = Non Sasquatch

 

[Compta38]

/cries in Sasquatch.

 

[Wanted33]

Based on trip time that's averaging ~30mph. I'd imagine a lot of highway use mixed with a lot of idling.

I agree. I don't think we can put much stock in numbers we see on these Bronco's. With my 2.3L Ranger much of the mpg's depends on the amount of go peddle one uses from a dead stop. Also, a lot does depend on the set up of the Bronco also. Much like the mpg numbers we get from the gubment, we'll have to wait and see what we get on our Bronco's after we get them home.

 

[Pancho Kornwallace]

A tiny 2.7L engine that is not fuel efficient .... how FORD like

just why exactly are these small engines in the market place? why not just do a normally aspirated V6 if consumption is the same ?

HUH?

1. Have you ever actually driven a Jeep Wrangler?
19MPH would be very efficient v a Jeep.

Remember that the four door is a very heavy vehicle that is just on the limit of its weight class. I expect my 2-Door with the 4 cylinder and 30s will do 3-4MPH better. Which would be awesome and would be way more efficient engines than Jeep.

2. Also did you check the HP and Torque on these things? Hint: They are very good. It is not 1976 anymore. Size of engines are getting smaller, but power output and efficiency is getting better. Ford now sells a 3-cylinder for the Bronco Sport and AWD Escape. It works great.

3. And how about checking the sales of Ford F-150s and Rangers with smaller engines? HInt: the sales numbers are excellent. Doors knows what it is doing.

 

[ronstar]

I have a 2017 F-150 3.5 on 32" KO2's that weighs about 4700 lbs getting 19mpg.

I'm getting a 2 dr 2.7 Badlands on 33" KO2's that weighs about the same. I suspect I'll get around 19 mpg on the Bronco too.

 

[bdub2you]

A tiny 2.7L engine that is not fuel efficient .... how FORD like

just why exactly are these small engines in the market place? why not just do a normally aspirated V6 if consumption is the same ?

The Bronco is heavy brick with no aerodynamics and large tires, it doesn't matter how efficient the engine is, you're not going to get great gas mileage. That said the gas mileage would be much worse with a normally aspirated engine. Turbochargers allows an automaker to substitute a smaller more fuel-efficient engine for a bigger engine, without sacrificing power.

Sponsored